

































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* , 0 ^ 


• «» c' ^ ■' y.T' 

c° ‘ 

* < 




V ‘-'T 7 r« i 

-ty •'’•■ 

- 4 .''^ '* 

”. '»b 


♦ o 



^ * *, 1 •' <0 ^ * • i'« 

"V .>r ''> ; 


■* • 

• *' <> '®-''** Jy ^ "''TvT* a 

fc-'^ f 






* » 



• <L^ <r* fS^ ^ *• 

... %.*"'* 0 ^ .••, ^'^>*"“’ V<’’^,... \. 

* ** ** "• * /y^y 

0 ^ C ® " * t .'■'•♦ . 0 ^ O ® " • -» 







A. .-4? ••--'- ^ 





o q. 


■«.» y <4 

• .a_r o * 



q> K 



^/k’- V .‘ 

t • 


»,♦ . 4 % ^' 



.■ 

0 ^ ^ o »,,-i*’ aO' *.;. 

• A ’‘.^l^'- < 

* <P '^ * Oll^3 * A V o 1 

<A *'<>'•■'»'* .0^ ^ A 

.V « * • A > 


. 6 ^ 0 ♦ ^O 4 • '■ ' • ♦ rO’ e 

.r Vl. 0 O 0^ G 





^ ♦.«o« ^ c^ ‘'.,1* aO ^ 

^ \/ 4 ’ • «^ *0 aO^ V 4 ’ • ^ 



V »’ • 

0^ 6 ® * • <* *^0 A*^ • ^ Qt 0 ® " * ♦ '^^O ^ ‘ 

^ '-^ 4 *®’ ♦ Vv 7 :%», ^ 4 “^ ♦* 



,,‘ y •; 

♦• ^ <• 

'J'*- .vJt^* O' 



q*. 4P 

• V ^ >4^ * 

L® ^,v * 


V ^ 

1 • ^ A^ • -f 

• - 

'/ aV •j^f. ■-’'^iy»* ‘ 4 '' ■'^ '’.^^^'^.* A^"’ 






%. .■ 

'*%" ^'’y ,.... %**^’ **o^°".* • • ','*%* *" * . • •»/% *" 

♦ 'Cc^ • I A xV .% W/ BS \N ♦ <k? • 


^ U A^ 


V,. -J 










i f 0 O ♦ ^o • •- ' • ^ Q^ o • • . 


'Kp 4 ' 




'i'^ .• 




?>K 


.■ 


*" *"’"*«^‘° '^**••'’" v?'^ *^,**^^’**9^ ^ * 

. .♦dlgv •■'Sfe'o %> 

• CL^'^rv 

_ ;♦ ^ • ®0S ♦ ^ o-H 

'•••* Vv^ '®**'* A <. *'?.?•* 0^ 

► .0^ 0®**» ^o 

•>-' M A ♦ <__ Cl » r«c<^ # . -> •*» t. "* _ ■*»* /• w 






❖ ^ 


-. - • <iy o * 

^ *...» O 

♦ ^ v' ► ’ • **-» 


0 ^ ^ 

‘ •• %‘*-'\'’\....-'^o r 

•/ \ ''SK*‘ '•»»^* < 

.0^ *<s ^ < 'f..* .<,■’■ ^ *‘7?^' ,^ 







«1l 

V V • 


® o 



<V ^ A®' 

V^ •‘l*^®^ ^ aO^ •L!nL% ^ 



^ 4^ ’f‘ c°^.‘^» °o % ro^ ■ 

' ' ^ IFtil ^ ^ • •JE^^vvWpfc « ^ w • 




•_ A«> ♦ 

L V/v C^ ♦ ‘ 


<5 

% kV * < 

<L^ o ^ 

A'' ’“^ '••• «V 'll 

r- ^ " 

’ ^ o n/Js^vll^ ^ ■C'^^ 'O&fc • A X 

i- -is^v °'^ A ’'“ 0°^ •^*» • 

-^o« ' ‘ ■'■ ■ *- 


• C^ '^A ■ •* 

* •% •- 




• <>► ^ 


'oK 



v^ .0^ •LtnL'^ 

L® c,^ * finSSl • ^ 

• C.^ '^A ** 

A ‘'O - » '• .0^ V ♦<r'777* X ^ 

. <-0^ «^*® -AT A**’'*-^ ^ 






V>‘.' 




O • II 




A* '-H 


* 

^0 

ov '’^ 0 ^ :4 

A-tV IgSi^^o <|5 ^ 

•' A.^ o_ ^0 ^ o 

JlV “V V H • “ - ^ 

• 



aV^. 




* ^ ® 








• T 



r 


, in 




\ 




I 






I 


f 

t I. 






# 'd 



■ *f 





4 


« 










4 














/ 


Calendar No., 4019. 


h9 m (yONGRESS. 


SENATE. 



Reft. 4253, 
Part 1. 


1st Session. 




/(t3 


REED SMOOT. 


June 11, 1906.—Ordered to be printed. 


lA . 


. Mr. Burrows, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, sub¬ 
mitted the following 


REPORT. 


The Committee on Privileges and Elections, who were charged by 
he Senate with the duty of investigating the right and title of Reed 
Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of Utah, 
•espectfully submit the following report: 

On the 23d day of February, 1903, the credentials of Reed Smoot 
IS a Senator of the United States from the State of Utah were pre- 
-ented to the Senate. On the same da}^ and at the same hour there 
Nvas also presented and placed on hie a protest from certain citizens of 
Utah, pra 3 dng for an investigation into the right of Mr. Smoot to the 
seat to which he claimed to have been elected. 

Subsequent!}", and on the 5th day of March, 1903, Mr. Smoot took 
the oath of office as Senator from Utah. At the same time the atten¬ 
tion of the Senate was, in behalf of the Committee on Privileges and 
Elections, called to the method of procedure in cases like that of Mr. 
Imoot. It was then stated, without question on the part of any mem- 
)er of the Senate, that in cases where the credentials of a Senator con- 
ist of “ a certificate of his due election from the executive of bis State, 
e is entitled to be sworn in, and that all questions relating to his qual- 
ications should be postponed and acted upon by the Sengte after- 
"a;rds.” Under this rule the credentials of Mr. Smoot, with the 
rotest against his right to a seat i-n the Senate, were referred to the 
Committee on Privileges and Elections under a resolution adopted by 
le Senate January 27, 1904, directing the committee to investigate 
■ le right and title of Mr. Smoot to a seat in the Senate as Senator 
rbm the State of Utah. 

The resolution is as follows: 

Resolved, That the Coipmittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate, or any 
F ibcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate the right and title of 
Keed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as Senator from the State of Utah; and said com¬ 
mittee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit during the sessions of the 
Senate, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to administer 
oaths; and that the expense of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent fund of 
the Senate upon' vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee. 






2 


REED SMOOT. 


3'^vf^ 


THE PROTEST AGAINST THE SEATING OF MR. SMOOT. 






The protest before referred to against the seating of Mr. Smoot as 
a Senator from the State of Utah is stated in such protest to be “ upon 
the ground and for the reason that he is one of a self-perpetuating body 
of fifteen men, who, constituting the ruling authorities of the Church 
of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, or ‘Mormon Church,’ claim, 
and by their followers are accorded the right to claim, supreme author¬ 
ity, divinel}^ sanctioned, to shape the belief and control the conduct of 
those under them in all matters whatsoever, civil and religious, tem¬ 
poral and spiritual, and who thus uniting in themselves authority in 
church and state do so exercise the same as to inculcate and encourage 
a belief in polj^gamy and pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation; who-countenance 
and connive at violations of the State law prohibiting the same, regard¬ 
less of pledges made for the purpose of obtaining statehood, and of 
coA-enants made with the people of the United States, and who b}" all 
the means in their power protect and honor those who, with them¬ 
selves, violate the laws of the land and are guilty of practices destruc¬ 
tive of the famil}^ and of the home.” 

In support of this protest the protestants make certain charges and 
assertions, the substance of which is as follows: 

1. The Mormon priesthood, according to the doctrines of that 
church, is vested with supreme authority in all things spiritual and 
temporal. 

2. The first presidency and twelve apostles (said Reed Smoot being 
one of said twelve apostles) are supreme in the exercise of the authority 
of the Mormon Church in all things temporal and spiritual. In sup 
port of this second proposition instances are given of the interferenc 
of the first presidency and twelve apostles in the political affairs Oi 
the State of Utah, and quotations at length are given from the decla¬ 
rations of officials in the Mormon Church regarding the authority of 
the leaders in said church to dictate to the membership thereof con¬ 
cerning the political action of said members. 

3 and I. That the first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mor¬ 
mon Church have not abandoned the principles and practice of political 
dictation; neither have they abandoned their belief in pol 3 ^ganiy and 
poWganious cohabitation. 

5. That the first presidency and twelve apostles (of whom Reed 
Smoot is one) also practice or connive at and encourage the practice 
of polygamy, and have without protest or objection permitted those 
who held legislative offices by their will and consent to attempt to 
nullify enactments against pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation. 

6. That the supreme authorities of the Mormon Church, namel 3 ^, 
the first presidency and twelve apostles (of whom Mr. Smoot is one), 
not only connive at violations of the law against polygamy and polyga¬ 
mous cohabitation, but protect and honor the violators of such laws. 

The protest further asserts that the leaders of the Mormon Church 
(of whom Mr. Smoot is one) are solemnly banded together against the 
people of the United States in the endeavor of said leaders to baffle 
the designs and frustrate the attempts of the Government to eradicate 
pol 3 "gam 3 ^ and polvgamous cohabitation. 

The protest further charges that the conduct and practices of the 
first presidencv and twelve apostles (of whom Mr. Smoot is one) are 



KEED SMOOT. 


3 


well known to be, first, contrar}^ to the public sentiment of the civi¬ 
lized world; second, contrary to express pledges which were given by 
the leaders of the Mormon Church in procuring* amnesty; third, con¬ 
trary to the express conditions upon which the escheated property of the 
Mormon Church was returned; fourth, contrary to the pledges given 
by the representatives of that church in their plea for statehood; 
fifth, contrary to the pledges required in the enabling act and given 
in the State constitution of Utah; sixth, contrary to a provision in the 
constitution of Utah providing that “ there shall be no union of church 
and state, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with 
its functions,” and seventh, contrary to law. The protest concludes 
by asking that the Senate make inquiry touching the matters stated in 
said protest. 

This protest is followed by certain charges made by one John L. 
Leilich under oath, which are in the main of the same tenor and ejffect 
as the charges made in the protest with the additional charge that Mr. 
Smoot is a pol 3 "gamist, having a legal wife and a plural wife, and the 
further charge that Mr. Smoot has, as an apostle of the Mormon 
Church, taken an oath “of such a nature and character as that he is 
thereby disqualified from taking the oath of office required of a United 
States Senator.” 

ANSWER OF MR. SMOOT. 

To the statements made in the protest and the charges by Mr. Leilich 
Mr. Smoot made answer, which answer is in the nature of a demurrer 
"to all the charges contained in the protest and to the charges made by 
Jr. Leilich, except two, namely, that Mr. Smoot is a polygamist and 
that he is bound b}^ some oath or obligation which is inconsistent with 
the oath taken by him as a Senator. Both these charges he denies, 
and further denies, specifically and categorically, the charges made in 
the protest and by Mr. Leilich. 

AUTHORITY OF THE SENATE AND NATURE OF THE INVESTIGATION. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the protest and answer, and 
the testimony taken by the committee, it may be well to examine, 
briefly, the authority of the Senate in the premises and the nature and 
scope of the investigation. 

The Constitution provides (Art. 1, sec. V, par. 1) that “Each House 
shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own 
Members.” It is now well established by the decisions of the Senate 
in a number of cases that in order to be a fit representative of a sov¬ 
ereign State of the Union in the Senate of the United States one 
must be in all respects obedient to the Constitution and laws of the 
United States and of the State from which he comes, and must also 
be desirous of the welfare of his country and in hearty accord and 
sympathy with its Government and institutions. If he does not possess 
these qualifications, if his conduct has been such as to be prejudicial to 
the welfare of society, of the nation or its Government, he is regarded 
as being unfit to perform the important and confidential duties of a 
Senator, and ma}^ be deprived of a seat in the Senate, although he may 
have done no act of which a court of justice could take^ cognizance. 


4 


REED SMOOT. 


Thus William IMouiit, a Senator from the State of Tennessee, was, in 
the year 1T97, deprived of his seat in the Senate for conduct '"incon¬ 
sistent with his })ul)lic trust and duty as a Senator.'’ llis otiense con¬ 
sisted in the writino- of a letter to one Carey, an otlicial interpreter to 
the Cherokee Nation, the conduct of Mr. 151oujit in writino- j^uid letter 
bein^ characterized b}’ the coimnittee of investio-ation in that case as 
follows: 

The plan hinted at in this extraordinary letter to be executed under the auspices of 
the British is so capable of different constructions and conjectures that your coniinit- 
tee at present forbear giving any decided opinion respecting it, exce])t that to INIr. 
Blount’s own mind it a])peared to be inconsistent with the interests of the United States 
and of Si)ain, and he was therefore anxious to conceal it from both. But when they 
consider his attempts to seduce Carey from his duty as a faithful interpreter and to 
employ him as an engine to alienate the affections and confidence of the Indians 
from the public oflicers of the United States residing among them; the measures he 
has proposed to excite a temper which must produce the recall or expulsion of our 
superintendent from the Creek Nation; his insidious advice tending to the advance¬ 
ment of his own popularity and consequence, at the expense and hazard of the good 
opinion which the Indians entertain of this (liovernment and of the treaties subsist¬ 
ing between us and them, your committee have no doubt that Mr. Blount’s conduct 
has been inconsistent with his public duty, renders him unworthy of a further con¬ 
tinuance of his present public trust in this body, and amounts toa high misdemeanor. 

The vote on the expulsion of Mr. Blount resulted as follows: Yeas, 
25, na 3 ^s, 1. (Senate Election Cases, 3d ecL, pp. 929-933.) 

In the year 1807, John Smith, a Senator from the State of Ohio, 
was accused of being associated with Aaron Burr in a conspirac}' 
‘‘against the peace and prosperity’' of the United States. In the 
report of the committee—of which John Quincy Adams was chair¬ 
man-appointed to investigate the case the committee sa}” 

In examining the question whether these forms of judicial proceedings or the rules 
of judicial evidence ought to be applied to the exercise of that censorial authority 
which the Senate of the United States possesses over the conduct of its members, let 
us assume as the test of their application either the dictates of unfettered reason, the 
letter and spirit of the Constitution, or precedents, domestic or foreign, and your 
committee believe that the result will be the same—that the power of expelling a 
member must, in its nature, be discretionary, and in its exercise always more sum¬ 
mary than the tardy process of judicial tribunals. 

The power of expelling a member for misconduct results on the principles of com¬ 
mon sense, from the interest of the Nation that the high trust of legislation should be 
invested in pure hands. When the trust is elective it is not to be presumed that the 
constituent body will commit the deposit to the keeping of worthless characters. 
But when a man whom his fellow-citizens have honored with their confidence on 
the pledge of his spotless reputation has degraded himself by commission of infamous 
crimes, which become suddenly and unexpectedly revealed to the world, defective 
indeed would be that institution which should be impotent to discard from its bosom 
the contagion of such a member, which should have no remedy of amputation to 
apply until the poison had reached the heart. 

The question upon the trial of a criminal cause before the courts of common law is 
not between guilt and innocence, but between guilt and the possibility of innocence. 
If a doubt can possibly be raised, either by the ingenuity of the party or of his coun¬ 
sel, or by the operation of general rules in their unforeseen application to particular 
cases, that doubt must be decisive for acquittal, and the verdict of not guilty perhaps 
in nine cases out of ten means no more than that the guilt of the party has not been 
demonstrated in the precise, specific, and narrow forms prescribed by law. The 
humane spirit of the laws multiplies the barriers for the protection of innocence and 
freely admits that these barriers may be abused for the shelter of guilt. It avows a 
strong partiality favorable to the person upon trial and acknowledges the preference 
that ten guilty should escape rather than that one innocent should suffer. The 
interest of the public that a particular crime should be punished is but as one to ten 
compared with the interest of the party that innocence should be spared. Acquittal 
only restores the party to the common rights of every other citizen; it restores him 


REED SMOOT. 


5 


to no public trust; it invests him with no iniblic confidence; it 8ui)8titutes the sen¬ 
tence of mercy for the doom of justice, and to the eyes of imx)artial reason in the 
great majority of cases must be considered rather as a pardon than a justification. 

But when a member of a legislative ])ody lies under the imputation of aggravated 
offenses and the determination upon his cause can operate only to remove him from 
a station of extensive powers and important trust, this disproportion between the 
interest of the public and the interest of the individual disappears; if any dispropor¬ 
tion exists, it is of an opposite kind. It is not better that ten traitors should be mem¬ 
bers of this Senate than that one innocent man should suffer expulsion. In either 
case, no d<jnbt, the evil would be great. But in the former it would strike at the 
vitals of the nations; in the latter it might, though deeply to be lamented, only be 
the calamity of an individual. 

The resolution reported ])v the said committee declaring “That 
John Smith, a Senator from the State of Ohio, by his participation in 
the conspirac}" of Aaron Burr against the peace, union, and liberties 
of the people of the United States, has been guilty of conduct incom¬ 
patible with his duty and station as a Senator of the United States, and 
that he he therefore, and here})}’ is, expelled from the Senate of the 
United States,” received 19 athrmatiye yotes to 10 in the negative. 
(Senate Election Cases, 3d ed., pp. OS-t-OdS.) 

In 180:^ flesse D. Bright was expelled from the Senate for writing a 
letter to Jefferson Davis, “president of the Confederation of States,” 
in March, 1801, introducing one Thomas B. Lincoln, who wished to 
dispose of an improvement in firearms. Some at least of the Senators 
who voted for Mr. BrighCs expulsion asserted in effect that they did 
not claim that Mr. Bright had been guilty of treason, misprision of 
treason, or any other offense against the laws of this country. He was 
deprived of his seat in the Senate because it was believed that his 
desires and conduct were o])posed to the welfare and interests of the 
nation. 

In the course of the debate upon the question of expelling Mr. 
Bright Mr. Sumner used the following language: 

* * * But the question may be properly asked if this inquiry is to be conducted 
as in a court of justice, under all the restrictions and technical rules of judicial pro¬ 
ceedings? Clearly not. Under the Constitution, the Senate, in a case like the pres¬ 
ent, is the absolute judge, free to exercise its power according to its own enlightened 
discretion. It may justly declare a Senator unworthy of a seat in this body on evi¬ 
dence defective in form, or on evidence even which does not constitute positive 
crime. * * * It is obvious that the Senate may act 6n any evidence which shall 
be satisfactory to show that one of its .members is unworthy of his seat without 
bringing it to the test of any rules of law. It is true that the good name of the indi¬ 
vidual is in question; but so also is the good name of the Senate, not forgetting also 
the welfare of the country; and if there are generous presumptions of personal inno¬ 
cence, so also are there irresistible instincts of self-defense which compel us to act 
vigorously, not only to preserve the good name of the Senate, but also to preserve the 
country. " (Congressional Globe, 2d sess. 87th Cong., pt. 1, pp. 412,413,414.) 

In the same debate Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, said: 

* * * But what is the law? We are not sitting as a court trying the honorable 
Senator. There are some gentlemen, able men, very able men, men of enlarged 
patriotism, of eminent public and private virtue that have pursued the ])rofession of 
the law so long, either as practitioners, counsellors and solicitors, or as judges, that 
their minds have become too contracted for enlarged statesmanship and the great 
principles of policy and moral justice, upon which governments ought to be admin¬ 
istered, and upon which alone they can be wisely administered. They have dwarfed 
their minds to such an extent that they can not reason upon the expansive principle 
and sentiment and consideration that ought to guide and control the largest and 
wisest statesmanship. 

There is no law which defines any particular class of offenses that shall be sufficient 
to expel a Senator from his seat. The common law does not. There is no statute 


6 


REED SMOOT. 


law that does. There are no rules of evidence establishing technical rules of testi¬ 
mony that are to guide and control and govern this body in getting its lights and 
reaching its conclusions when a Senator is thus on trial. The general rule and prin¬ 
ciple of law and of reason and common sense is that whatever disqualifies a member 
of the Senate from the proper discharge of his duties, whatever it may be, is suffi¬ 
cient, and ought to be held sufficient, for his expulsion, and whatever evidence satis¬ 
fies tlie mind reasonably and according to moral certainty and truth of the existence 
of that cause is sufficient evidence without resorting to the technical rules of testi¬ 
mony upon which to (jonvict him. That is the law of this country. It is the law of 
England. It is the law of Parliament. I will read from Story’s Commentaries on 
the Constitution, section 836, a short paragraj)h: 

“ * * * In July, 1797, William Blount was expelled from the Senate fora 
high misdemeanor entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a Senator. 
The offense charged against him was an attempt to seduce an American agent 
among the Indians from his duty and to alienate the affections and confidence of the 
Indians from the public authorities of the United States, and a negotiation for serv¬ 
ices in behalf of the British Government among the Indians. It was not a statu¬ 
table offense; nor was it committed in his official character; nor was it committed 
during the session of Congress, nor at the seat of government. Yet, by an almost 
unanimous vote [25 yeas to 1 nay] he was expelled from that body and he was 
afterwards impeached (as has already been stated) for this, among other charges. 
It seems, therefore, to be settled by the Senate, upon full deliberation, that expulsion 
may be for any misdemeanor which, though not punished by any statute, is inconsist¬ 
ent with the-trust and duty of a Senator.” 

There is the touchstone. Any conduct, any opinions, any line of action as a Sena¬ 
tor which is inconsistent with the duty of a Senator, is a sufficient cause for his 
expulsion and ought to be the rule of reason and of common sense. * * * The 
principle deduced from the authorities is this: There is no common law, no statu¬ 
tory law, there is no parliamentary law that binds the Senate to any particular defi¬ 
nition of crime or offense in acting in this or any other case of the kind. On the 
contrary, as these authorities establish, it is a matter coming within the discretion of 
the tribunal trying the Senator. (Congressional Globe,*2d sess. 37th Cong., pt. 1, 
pp. 434, 435.) 

In tlie progress of the debate Mr. McDougall said: 

* * * It is no question of law. AVe have not asked whether the Senator from 
Indiana is guilty or not guilty. We have to judge him in our best judgment, and by 
that we try him; and we say yea or nay, as we think, whether he be a true man or 
not to sit in the Federal councils to conduct the affairs of the United States. (Con¬ 
gressional Globe, 2d sess. 37th Cong., pt. 1, p. 655.) 

To the same effect were the remarks made in the course of the same 
debate b}^ Mr. Lane, Mr. Howe, Mr. Johnson, and jMr. Browning. 
(Congressional Globe, 2d sess. 3Tth Cong., pt. 1, pp. 417, 418, 560, 584, 
623, 624.) 

In the year 1867 Philip F. Thomas was denied a seat in the Senate 
of the United States, to which he had been duly elected, for the reason 
that he had resigned his seat in the cabinet of * President Buchanan on 
account of his disagree’ment with the polic}^ of the President in endeav¬ 
oring to relieve the garrison of the forts in Charleston Harbor, and 
also because Mr. Thomas had given to his son, who was aljout to enter 
the service of the Confederate States, a sum of money, not to assist 
the son in going to the camp of the Confederate forces, but “ that in 
case he was imprisoned or suffering he might have a sum of moneA’ 
with him.” There was no well founded claim that Mr. Thomas had 
been guilty of any act or conduct of which any court Avould take cog¬ 
nizance; the most that was claimed was that Ids conduct was such as 
to give “aid, countenance, and encouragement to persons engaged in 
armed hostility to the United States.” (Senate Election Cases, 3d ed., 
pp. 333-339.) 

In the British Parliament the same principle has been recognized in 
a number of cases and is now fully established. 


KEED SMOOT. 


7 


In the year 1812 Benjamin Walsh was expelled from the House of 
Commons as unworthy and unfit to continue a member of this House,” 
on account of said Walsh having been guilty of “gross fraud and 
notorious breach of trust,” although his offense was one “not amount¬ 
ing to felony.” (67 Commons Journal, 175-176.) In that case the 
chancellor of the exchequer said: 

He could not think that because an act of Parliament did not make a moral crime 
a legal one the House of Commons should be prevented from taking cognizance of it. 
(Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, first series, vol. 21, p. 1199.) 

In the year 1811 Sir Thomas Cochrane was expelled from the House 
of Commons for being concerned in a conspiracy to spread the false 
report that the French army had been defeated, Napoleon killed, and 
that the allied sovereigns were in Paris, the object to be attained by 
such false report being “to occasion a temporarj^ rise and increase in 
the prices of the public Government funds,” to the injuiy of those who 
should purchase such funds “during such last-mentioned temporary 
rise and increase in the prices thereof.” (69 Commons Journal, 
127-133.) 

THE PROTESTANTS. 

The main protest in this case was signed by 18 reputable citizens of 
the State of Utah. One of the signers. Dr. W. M. Paden, is the pastor of 
one of the leading Protestant churches of Salt Lake City and a graduate 
of Princeton Universit}^; another, Mr. P. L. Williams, is the general 
counsel of a railroad in Utah and the Western States; another, Mr. E. 
W. Wilson, is the cashier of a national bank in Salt Lake City; another, 
Mr. C. C. Goodwin, the editor of one of the leading papers of that 
ciH; another, Mr. W. S. Neldin, the president of a wholesale drug 
company doing business not only in Utah, but in other of the Western 
States; another, Mr. Ezra Thompson, a gentleman who has held the 
office of mayor of Salt Lake City for two terms; another, Mr. J. J. 
Corwin, a man engaged in real estate, who has been a resident of Utah 
for about sixteen ^^ears; five others, Mr. George K. Hancock, Mr. W. M. 
Ferr}’, Mr. Harry C. Hill, Hon. C. E. Allen, and Mr. H. G. McMillan, 
are men holding positions in the mining industry of Utah. Mr. Allen 
was the first Representative in Congress from the State of Utah. 
Another of the signers of the protest, Mr. G. H. Lewis, was formerly 
assistant United States attorney and is now master in chancery of the 
United States circuit court. Rev. Abiel Leonard was, up to the time 
of his death, which occurred in November, 1903, the Bishop of the Dio¬ 
cese of Utah of the Protestant Episcopal Church. From the standing 
and character of the signers, it is evident that the protest is not the 
offspring of suspicion or prejudice, but that such protest emanates 
from men of such character and respectability as to be entitled to 
serious and careful consideration and the facts therein stated to be 
worthy of investigation by the Senate. 

As regards the charge that Mr. Smoot has a plural wife, this fact, 
if proved, is conceded by Mr. Smoot and his counsel to be sufficient to 
disqualify him from holding a seat in the Senate. But this accusation 
seems to "have been made by Mr. Leilich, unadvisedly and on his own 
responsibility, and without any sufficient evidence in support of the 
same. This charge is not made in the main protest, and counsel for the 
protestants at the outset of the investigation very frankly admitted that 
they had no proof to offer in support of this allegation. 


8 


REED SMOOT. 


ENCOURAGEMENT OF ROLYGAMY AND POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION BY 
THE MORMON AUTHORITIES. 

The tir«t reason assioned by the protestants why Mr. Smoot is not 
entitled to a seat in the Senate is in elfect that he belongs to a self- 
perpetuating body of fifteen men Avdio constitute the ruling authorities 
of the Church of Latter-Day Saints, or ‘‘Mormon Church,” so called; 
that this ruling body of the church both claims and exercises the right 
of shaping the belief and controlling the conduct of the members of 
that church in all matters whatsoeyer, ciyil and religious, temporal 
and spiritual.; 'It is then alleged that this self-perpetuating body of 
tifteeil’men,'pf whom Mr. Smoot is one, uniting in themselves authority 
in both ch*urch and state so exercise this authority as to encourage a 
belief in pohygamy as a divine institution and by both precept and 
example encourage among their followers the practice of polygani}^ 
and polygamous cohabitation. 

Th^ the first presidency and tM'elve apostles of the Mormon Church 
are a s%lf-perpetuating body of fifteen men, seems to be well established 
b}^ the testimoiw of the one most competent to speak upon that sub¬ 
ject, the president of the Church of Latter-Da}^' Saints, Mr. Joseph F. 
Smith, Who testifies, as Mill be seen on pages Jl and 92 of volume 1 of 
the printed copy of the proceedings m the investigation, that vacancies 
occurring in the number of the twelve apostles are filled by the 
apostles themselves with the consenCajid approval of the first presi¬ 
dency. 

testimony of Mr. Smith is as follo^vs: 

Senator McComas. xlnd the twelve apostles were then first named? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir. 

Senator McComas. When vacancies occurred thereafter, by what body were the 
vacancies in the twelve apostles filled? 

Mr. Smith. Perhaps I may say in this way: Chosen by the body, the twelve them¬ 
selves, by and with the consent and approval of the first presidency. 

Senator Hoar. Was there a revelation in regard to each of them? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; not in regard to each of them. Do you mean in the begin¬ 
ning? 

Senator Hoar. I understand you to say that the original twelve apostles were 
selected by revelation? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; that is right. 

Senator Hoar. Is there any revelation in regard'Td the subsequent ones? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; it has been the choice of the body. 

Senator McComas. Then the apostles are perpetuated in succession by their own 
act and the approval of the first presidency? 

Mr. Smith. That is right. 

To the same effect is the testimou}" of Francis M. Lyman. 

It further appears that an}' one of the Lvelve apostles ma}" be 
removed by his fellow-apostles Muthout consulting the members of the 
church in general. It is also in proof that the first presidency and 
twelve apostles govern the church by means'of so-called revelations 
from God, which revelations are givep to the membership of the 
church as emanating from divine authority. It is also shown that 
those members of the Mormon Church who refuse to obey the revela¬ 
tions so communicated by the priesthood thereby become out of har¬ 
mony with the church and are thus practically excluded from the 
blessings, benefits, and privileges of membership in the church. 

It is also well established by the testimony that the members of the 
Mormon Church are governed in all things by the first pi;psidency and 


REED SMOOT. 


9 


twelve apostles. That this aiithorit}" is extended to the membership 
through a series and succes_sion of subordinate officials, consisting of 
presidents of seventies, presiding bishops, elders, presidents of stakes, 
bishops, and other officials. That one of the chief requirements by 
the leaders of the church is that members shall take counsel of their 
religious superiors in all things whatsoever, whether civil or reli¬ 
gious, temporal or spiritual. That the failure to receive and obey 
counsel in any of these matters subjects the one who refuses to the 
discipline of the church. That this discipline is administered in the 
first instance by the subordinate officials, subject to the right to ap¬ 
peal to the higher officials of the church, and ultimately to the first 
president and twelve apostles. These rules, enforced, as they are, 
by the discipline of the Mormon Church constitute the first presi¬ 
dent and twelve apostles a hierarchy, a body of men at the head of a 
religious organization governing their followers with absolute and 
unquestioned authority in all things relating to temporal and political, 
as well as to spiritual affairs. 

The testimony taken before the committee also shows be 3 ^ond a 
reasonable doubt that this authoritv of the first presidency and twelve 
apostles is so exercised over the members of the Mormon Church as to 
inculcate a belief in the divine origin of poh^gamv and its rightful¬ 
ness as a practice, and also to encourage the membership of that church 
in the practice of polygamy and polygamous cohabitation. While this' 
is denied on the part of the officials of the church, the truthfulness of 
the claim of the protestants in this regard is shown b}^ a great number 
of facts and circumstances, no one of which is perhaps conclusive in 
itself, but when taken together form a volume of testimon\^ so cogent 
and convincing as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind that the 
truth is as stated b}" the protestants. It is proved without denial that 
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, one of the leading authorities of 
the Mormon Church, and still circulated bv that church as a book 
equal in authority to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, contains the 
revelation regarding polygann", of which the following is a part: 

61. And ayain, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood: If any man espouse a 
virgin and desires to espouse another and the first give her consent, and if he espouse 
the second, and they are virgins and have vowed to no other man, then he is justi¬ 
fied—he can not commit adultery, for they are given unto him; for he can not com¬ 
mit adultery with that that belongeth to him and to no one else. 

62. And if he have 10 virgins given unto him by this law he can not commit adul¬ 
tery, for they belong to him and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified. 

63. But if one or either of the 10 virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another 
man she has committed adultery and shall be destroyed, for they are given unto him 
to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfill 
the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world; and 
for their exaltation in the eternal ^\mrlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for 
herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. 

64. And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man hath a wife who holds 
the kevs of this power and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertain¬ 
ing these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him or she shall be 
destro 3 ^ed, said the Lord your God, for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my 
name upon all those who receive and abide in my law. 

65. Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receives not this law for him to 
receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she 
did not minister unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the trans¬ 
gressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah who ministered unto Abraham 
according to the law, when I commanded Abraham to take Hager to wife. 

It is also shown that numerous other publications of the Mormon 
Church are still circulated among the members of that church with the 


10 


REED SMOOT. 


knowledge and by the authority of the church officials, which contain 
arguments in favor of pol 3 'gam 3 \ The Book of Doctrine and Cov¬ 
enants is not onl 3 ^ still put forth to the members of the church as 
authoritative in all respects, but the first presidency and twelve 
apostles have never incorporated therein the manifesto forbidding 
the practice of polygamy and pol 3 "gamous cohabitation, nor have the 3 " 
at anv time or in an 3 way qualified the reputed revelation to Joseph 
Smith regarding pol 3 "gamy. And this Book of Doctrine and Cov¬ 
enants, containing the polygamic revelation, is regarded b 3 ^ Mormons 
as being of higher authority than the manifesto suspending polygamy. 

Bearing in mind the authority of the first presidency and twelve 
apostles over the whole body of the Mormon Church, it is very evi¬ 
dent that if pol 3 "gam 3 ^ were discountenanced b 3 ^ the leaders of that 
church it would veiy^ soon be a thing of the past among the members 
of that church. On the contrary, it appears that since the admission 
of Utah into the Union as a State the authorities of the Mormon 
Church have countenanced and encouraged the commission of the 
crime of pol 3 ^gam 3 ^ instead of preventing it, as the 3 ^ could easih^ have 
done. 

A sufficient number of specific instances of the taking of plural 
wives since the manifesto of 1890, so called, have been shown 63 ^ the 
testimon 3 " as having taken place among officials of the Mormon Church 
to demonstrate the fact that the leaders in this church, the first presi¬ 
dency and the twelve apostles, connive at the practice of taking plural 
wives, and have done so ever since the manifesto was issued which 
purported to put an end to the practice. It has been shown b 3 ^ the 
testimonv", so clearly as to leave no doubt of the fact, that as late as 
1896 one Lillian Hamlin became the plural wife of Abraham H. Cannon, 
who was then an apostle of the Mormon Church. This is shown by 
the proof of these facts: 

Down to the vear 1895 Lillian Hamlin was a single woman. In 1896 
she received attentions from Abraham H. Cannon, these attentions 
being of a character to indicate that there was more than a friendl 3 ^ 
relation existing between the two. In June, 1896, Abraham H. Can¬ 
non informed his plural wife that he was going to California with 
Joseph F. Smith and Lillian Hamlin to be married to Lillian Hamlin 
at some place outside the United States. While in California Joseph 
F. Smith went with Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin from 
Los Angeles to Catalina Island. After the return of the party to Los 
Angeles, Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin lived together as 
husband and wife. Returning to Salt Lake City, Abraham H. Cannon 
told his plural wife that he had been married to Lillian Hamlin. 
From that time it was generally reputed in the conimunit 3 ^ and under¬ 
stood by the families of both Abraham H. Cannon and Lillian Hamlin 
that a marriage had taken place between them; that they had been 
married on the high seas by Joseph F. Smith. Lillian Hamlin as¬ 
sumed the name of Cannon, and a child to which she afterwards gave 
birth bears the name of Cannon and inherited a share of the estate 
of Abraham H. Cannon. The prominence of Abraham H. Cannon in 
the church, the publicity given to the fact of his taking Lillian 
Hamlin as a plural wife, render it practically impossible that this 
should have been done without the knowledge, the consent, and the 
connivance of the headship of that church. 


EEED SMOOT. 


11 


George Teasdale, another apostle of the Mormon Church, contracted 
a plural marriage with Marion Scholes since the manifesto of 1890. 
The president of the Mormon Church endeavors to excuse this act 
upon the pretext that the hrst marriage of George Teasdale was not a 
legal marriage, but the testimony taken from the divorce proceedings 
which separated George Teasdale from his lawful wife, wholly con¬ 
troverts this assertion on the part of President Smith. 

It is also in evidence that Walter Steed, a prominent Mormon, con¬ 
tracted a plural marriage after the manifesto of 1890. Charles E. 
Merrill, a bishop of the Mormon Church, took a plural wife in 1891, 
more than a year after the issuing of the manifesto. The ceremony 
uniting said Merrill to his plural wife was performed by his father, 
who was then and until the time of his death an apostle in the Mormon 
Church. It is also shown that John W. Taylor, another apostle of the 
Mormon Church, has been married to two plural wives since the 
I issuing of the so-called manifesto. 

' Matthias F. Cowley, another of the twelve apostles, has also taken 
I one or more plural wives since the manifesto. While the proof that 
I Apostles Taylor and Cowley have married plural wives since the 
[ manifesto may not be so free from all possible doubt as is the proof 
in the case of Abraham Cannon, the fact that the proofs presented 
j to the committee showing such marriages b}^ Taylor and Cannon 
I stand wholly uncontroverted, and the further fact that Apostles Taylor 
and Cowley, instead of appearing before the committee and denying 
the allegation, evade service of process issued b}^ the committee for 
their appearance, and refuse to appear after being requested to do 
i so, warrant the conclusion that the allegation is true and that said 
* Ta^dor and Cowley have taken plural wives since the manifesto. 

While the fact does not appear from any sworn testimony in the 
case, it is a matter of common report that Tavlor and Cowley have 
recently been dropped from the list of apostles. But this fact in no 
way counteracts the influence of the Mormon leaders in their encour¬ 
agement of polvgamy. When Taylor and Cowley took their more 
recent plural wives they were numbered among the apostles in good 
standing. The fact that they had taken plural wives since the mani¬ 
festo was well known to their associates for months and years. But 
they were continued as apostles, and no action was taken in the case of 
either until the-facts were revealed to the world b}" this investigation. 
And it is worthy of note that these apostles have not been complained 
of or brought to trial before the church courts for disobeying the 
manifesto, nor have they been deprived of their offices or honors in 
the church (as was done in the case of Moses Thatcher for a political 
offense), but they are still members of the church in good standing, 
each still holds the office of an elder in the church, and each is still a 
member of the high priesthood of the churcli. 

The dropping of Taylor and Cowley from tlie quorum of the twelve 
apostles was so evidently done for popular effect that the act merits 
no consideration whatever, except as an admission by the first presi¬ 
dency and twelve apostles that Apostles Taylor and Cowley have each 
taken one or more plural wives since the manifesto. 

It is also proved that about the year 1896 James Francis Johnson 
was married to a plural wife, Clara Mabel Barber, the ceremony in 
this instance being performed by an apostle of the Mormon Church. 



12 


KEED SMOOT. 


To these cases nuist be added that of Alarriner . Mei’rill. anotlier 
apostle; J. M. Tanner, superintendent of church schools; l^enjaniin 
Cliitf, jr., president of Brigham Young University; Ihonias Cham¬ 
berlain, counselor to the president of a stake; Bishop Kathall. John 
Silver, Winslow Farr, Heber Benion, Samuel S. Newton, a man named 
Okey, who contracted a plural marriage with Ovena Jorgensen in the 
year 189T, and Morris Michelson about the year 1902. In the case of 
'Benjamin Cluti', jr., before referred to, the polygamous marriage was 
tacitly sanctioned by President Joseph F. Smith when he ‘‘’referred to 
Sister Clufi' and the work she had been doing among the children in 
Colonia Diaz, Mexico.” 

It is morally impossible that all these violations of the laws of the 
State of Utah by the contracting of plural marriages could have been 
committed without the knowledge of the first presidency and the 
twelve apostles of the Mormon Church. In two of the above cases, 
that of Geoi’ge Teasdale and that of Benjamin Clufl', jr., the fact of 
the plural marriage was directly communicated to the president of the 
church, Joseph F. Smith, and in the other cases, with the possible 
exception of flames Francis Johnson, the fact of a plural marriage 
having been celebrated was so well known throughout the community 
that it is not conceivable that such marriages would not have been 
called to the attention of the leaders of the church. Indeed, there was 
no denial on the part of the first president or any one of the twelve 
apostles that they learned of the fact that plural marriages were being 
contracted by officials of the Mormon Church and that no attention 
was paid to the matter. The excuse given by them was that it was not 
their duty to interfere in such matters; that the law furnished a remedy. 
Furthermore, it was shown by the testimony of one of the twelve 
apostles and of other witnesses that "‘under the established law of the 
church no person could secure a plural wife except Iw consent of the 
president of the church.” 

SUPPRESSION OF TESTIMONY BY MORMON LEADERS. 

It is a fact of no little significance in itself, bearing on the question 
whether polygamous marriages have been recently contracted in Utah 
by the connivance of the first presidency and twelve apostles of the 
Mormon Church, that the authorities of said church have endeavored 
to suppress, and have succeeded in suppressing, a great deal of testi¬ 
mony by which the fact ol^ plural marriages contracted by those who 
were high in the councils of the church might have been established 
beyond the shadow of a doubt. Before the investigation had begun 
^'it was well known in Salt Lake Cit}^ tliat it was expected to show on 
the part of the protestants that Apostles George Teasdale, John W. 
Taylor, and M. F. Cowley, and also Prof. J. M. Tanner, Samuel New¬ 
ton and others who were all high officials of the IMormon Church had 
recently taken plural wives, and that in 1896 Lillian Hamlin was sealed 
to Apostle Abraham H. Cannon as a pdural wife hy one of the first 
presidency and twelve apostles of the iMormon Church. All, or nearly 
all. of these persons except Abraham H. Cannon, who was deceased, 
were then within reach of service of process from the committee. But 
shortly before the investigation began all these witnesses went out of 
the country. 


REED SMOOT. 


13 

« 

Subpcenas were issued for each one of the witnesses named, but in 
the case of Samuel Newton onl}" could the process of the committee 
be serv'ed. Mr. Newton refused to o])e 3 ’ the order of tlie committee, 
alleoing no reason or excuse for not appearing. It is shown that John 
W. T a^Jor was sent out of the countiT by Joseph F. Smith on a real 
or pretended mission for the chuich. And it is undeniabh" true that 
not onl^" the apostles, but also all other officials of the Mormon Church, 
are at all times subject to the orders of the governing authorities of 
I the church. 

It would be nothing short of self-stultilication for one to believe 
that all these most important witnesses chanced to leave the United 
States at about the same time and without reference to the investiga¬ 
tion. All the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction 
point to the conclusion that everv one of the witnesses named left the 
j country at the instance of the rulers of the Mormon Church and to 
avoid testifying before the committee. It is, furthermore, a fact 
which can not be questioned that every one of these witnesses is under 
the direction and control of the first presidencA^ and twelve apostles of 
the Mormon Church. Had those officials seen fit to direct the wit¬ 
nesses named to return to the United States and give their testimon^^ 
before the committee, the}' Avould have been obliged to do so. The 
reason wh}' the said witnesses left the countr}^ and have refused to 
come before the comnuttee is easy to understand, in view of the testi¬ 
mony showing the contracting of plural marriages b}' prominent offi¬ 
cials of the Mormon Church within the past few 3 'ears. 

It was claimed bv the protestants that the records kept in the Mor¬ 
mon temple at Salt Lake Citv and Logan would disclose the fact that 
plural marriages have been contracted in Utah since the manifesto with 
the sanction of the officials of the church. A witness who was required 
to bring the records in the temple at Salt Lake Cit}' refused to do so 
after consulting with President Smith. It is claimed b}' counsel for 
Mr. Smoot that this witness was not mentally competent to testily; 
but his testirnon}' ma}' be searched in vain for any internal evidence of 
such incompetency, and there was nothing in the appearance of the 
witness when testifying to suggest to the committee that he Avas not as 
competent to testify as any Avitness who Avas examined during the 
course of the investigation. 

The Avitness Avho was required to bring the records kept in the tem¬ 
ple at Logan excused himself from attending on the plea of ill health. 
But the important part of the mandate of the committee—the produc¬ 
tion of the records—Avas not obeyed by sending the records, Avhich 
could easily have been done. 

In the case of other witnesses who were believed to have contracted 
plural marriages since the 3 ^ear 1890 all sorts of shifts, tricks, and 
evasions were resorted to in order to avoid service of a subpoena to 
appear before the committee and testifv. 

These instances of the suppression of testimony by the direct order 
or tacit consent of the ruling authorities of the Mormon Church war¬ 
rant the committee in believing that the suppressed testimony AA^ould, 
if produced, strongly corroborate the testimony Avhich was giA'en, 
showing that those Avho direct the affairs of the Mormon Church coun¬ 
tenance and encourage polvgamous marriages, as well as pol3^gamous’ 
cohabitation, and that the allegations of the protestants in that regard 
are true. 




14 


REED SMOOT. 


MORMON OFBTCIALS LIVING IN POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION. 

Aside from this it was shown by the testimony, and in such a way 
that the fact could not possibly })e controverted, that a majority of 
those who g-ive the law to the Mormon (diurcli are now, and have been 
for 3 "ears, livdng’ in open, notorious, and shameless pol 3 \^'amous cohabi¬ 
tation. The list of those who are thus guilty of violating the laws of 
the State and the rules of public decency is headed bv Joseph F. Smith, 
the first president, prophet, seer, and revelator” of the Mormon 
Church, who testitied in regard to that subject as follows: 

Mr. Taylor. Is the cohabitation with one who is claimed to be a plural wife a 
violation of the law of the church as well as of the law of the land? 

Mr. Smith. That was the case, and is the case even to-day. 

Mr. Taylor. What was the case; what you are about to say? 

Mr. Smith. That it is contrary to the rule of the church, and contrary as well to the 
law of the land, for a man to cohabit with his wives. * * * I have cohabited 
with my wives; not openly—that is, not in a manner that I thought would be offen¬ 
sive to my neighbors—but 1 acknowledged them; I have visited them. They have 
borne me children since 1890, and I have done it, knowing the responsibility and 
knowing that 1 was amenable to the law. * * * 

Mr. Taylor. In 1892, Mr. Smith, how many wives did you have? 

Mr. Smith. In 1892? 

Mr. Taylor. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. I had five. * * * 

Mr. Taylor. My question is. How many children have been born to him by these 
wives since 1890? 

Mr. Smith. I had eleven children born since 1890. 

Mr. Taylor. Those are all the children that have been born to you since 1890? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir; those are all. 

Mr. Taylor. Were those children by all of your wives; that is, did all of your 
wives bear children? 

Mr. Smith. All of my wives bore children. 

Mr. Taylor. Since 1890? 

yir. Smith. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I understand since 1890? 

Mr. Smith. Since 1890. I said that I have had born to me eleven children since 
1890, each of my wives being the mother of from one to two of those children. * * * 

The Chairman. Mr. Smith, I will not press it, l)ut I will ask you if you have any 
objection to stating how many children you have in all. 

Mr. Smith. Altogether? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Smith. I have had born to me, sir, forty-two children—twenty-one boys and 
twenty-one girls—and I am proud of every one of them. * * * 

The Chairman. Do you obev the law in having five wives at this time and having 
them bear to you 11 children since the manifesto of 1890? 

Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, I have not claimed that in that case I have obeyed the 
law of the land. 

The Chairman. That is all. 

Mr. Smith. I do not claim so, and, as I said before, that 1 prefer to stand my 
chances against the law. (Vol. 1, pp. 129, 13:1, 148, 197, :182.) 

The list also includes George Teasdale, an apostle; John W. Ta 3 dor, 
an apostle; John Heniy Smith, an apostle; Marriner W. Merrill, also 
an apostle; Heber J. Grant, an apostle; M. F. Cowlet^ an apostle; 
Charles W. Penrose, an apostle; and PT-ancis M. L^unan, who is not 
onh^ an apostle, but the probable successor of Joseph F. Smith as 
president of the church. Thus it appears that the first president and 
eight of the twelve apostles, a considerable majorit 3 ^ of the ruling 
authorities of the Mormon Church, are noted polygamists. 

• In addition to these, the list includes Brigham H. Roberts, who is 
one of the presidents of seventies and a leading official of the church; 
J. M. Tanner, superintendent of the church schools; Andrew Jenson, 



KEED SMOOT. 


15 


assistant historian of the church; Thomas H. Merrill, a bishop of the 
church; Alma Merrill, one of the presidency of a church stake; Angus 
M. Cannon, patriarch of the Mormon Church; a man named Greenwald, 
who is at the head of a church school; George Reynolds, one of the 
first seven presidents of sev^enties and first assistant superintendent of 
Sunday schools of the world; George H. Brimhall, president of Ihdg- 
ham Young University; and Joseph Hickman, teacher in Brigham 
Young University. All the officials named were appointed, either 
directly or indirectly, by the first presidency and twelve apostles; and 
in the case of J. M. Tanner, his appointment to his present office was 
made after he had been compelled to resign his position as president of 
the agricultural college because of the fact that he was a polygamist. 

These facts abundantly justify the assertion made in the protest that 
‘Hhe supreme authorities in the church, of whom Senator-elect Reed 
Smoot is one, to wit, the first presidency and twelve apostles, not only 
connive at violation of, but protect and honor the violators of the laws 
against pol 3 'gamy and polygamous cohabitation.” 

It will be seen b\^ the foregoing that not only do the first presidency 
and twelve apostles encourage polygamy in^ precept and teaching, but 
that a majority of the members of that body of rulers of the Mormon 
people give the practice of polygamy still further and greater encour¬ 
agement b^^ living the lives of poWgamists, and this openly and in the 
sight of all their followers in the Mormon Church. It can not be 
doubted that this method of encouraging pol^^gamy is much more effi¬ 
cacious than the teaching of that crime by means of the writings and 
publications of the leaders of the church, and this upon the familiar 
principle that ‘‘actions speak louder than w^ords.” * 

And not onh^ do the president and a majoritv of the twelve apostles 
of the Mormon Church practice pol^^gamy, but in the case of each and 
every one guilty of this crime who testified before the committee, the 
determination was expressed openly and defiantH to continue the com¬ 
mission of this crime without regard to the mandates of the law or the 
prohibition contained in the manifesto. And it is in evidence that the 
said first president, addressing a large concourse of the members of 
the Mormon Church at the tabernacle in Salt Lake City in the month 
of June, 1904, declared that if he were to discontinue the polygamous 
relation with his plural wives he should be forever damned, and for¬ 
ever deprived of the companionship of God and those most dear to 
him throughout eternit 3 ^ Thus it appears that the “prophet, seer, 
and revelator” of the Mormon Church pronounces a decree of eternal 
condemnation throughout all eternity upon all members of the Ylormon 
Church who, having taken plural wives, fail to continue the polyga¬ 
mous relation. So that the testimon 3 ^ upon that subject, taken as a 
whole, can leave no doubt upon any reasonable mind that the allega¬ 
tions in the protest are true, and that those w ho are in authority in the 
Mormon Church, of whom Mr. Smoot is one, are encouraging the 
practice of polygamy among the members of that church, and that 
polygamy is being practiced to such an extent as to call for the severest 
condemnation in all legitimate wa 3 "S. 

THE MANIFESTO A DECEPTION. 

Against these facts the authorities of the Mormon Church urge that 
in the year 1890 what is generally termed a manifesto was issued by 


REED SMOOT. 


U) 

the rirst presidency of that church, suspending the practice of polyg¬ 
amy among the members of that church. It ma}" be said in the tirst 
place that this manifesto misstates the facts in regard to the solernni- 
zation of ])lural marriages within a short period preceding the issuing 
of the manifesto. It now appears that in a number of instances plural 
marriages had been solemnized in the Mormori Church, and, in the case 
of those high in authority in that church, within a very few months 
preceding the issuing of the manifesto. 

It is also observable that this manifesto in no way declares the prin¬ 
ciple of polygamy to be wrong or abrogates it as a doctrine of the 
Mormon Church, but simply suspends the practice of polygamy to be 
resumed at some more convenient season, either with or without another 
revelation. It is now claimed by the tirst president and other promi¬ 
nent officials of the Mormon Church that the manifesto was not a reve¬ 
lation, but was, at the most, an inspired document, designed “ to meet 
the hard conditions then confronting” those who were practicing 
polygani}^ and pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation, leaving what the Mormon 
leaders are pleased to term “ the principle of plural marriage ” as much 
a tenet of their faith and rule of practice when possible, as it was 
before the manifesto was issued. Upon that subject Joseph F. Smith 
testified as follows: 

]Mr. Taylor. The revelation which Wilford Woodruff received in consequence of 
which the command to take plural wives was suspended did not, as you understand, 
change the divine view of plural marriage, did it? 

Mr. Smith. It did not change our belief at all. 

Mr. Taylor. It did not change your belief at all? 

]Mr. Smith. Not at all, sir. 

Mr. Taylor. You continued to believe that plural marriages were right? 

Mr. Smith. We did. I did, at least. I do not answer for anybody else. I con¬ 
tinue to believe as I did before. (Vol. 1, p. 107.) 

Senator Hoar. The apostle says that a bishop must be sober and must be the 
husband of one wife. 

Mr. Smith. At least. 

And one of the twelve apostles has declared the fact to be that ‘‘the 
manifesto is onh^ a trick to beat the devil at his own game.” Further 
than this, it is conceded by all that this manifesto was intended to pro¬ 
hibit polygamous cohabitation as strongly^ as it prohibited the solem¬ 
nization of plural marriages. In the case of polygamous cohabitation, 
the manifesto has been wholly disregarded by^ the members of the 
Mormon Church. It is hardly'^ reasonable to expect that the members 
of that church w^ould have any greater regard for the prohibition of 
plural marriage. 

The contention that the practice of poly^gamy^ is rightful as a relig¬ 
ious ceremony^ and therefore protected by that provision of the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States which declares that “Congress shall 
make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting 
the free exercise thereof,” ought to be forever set at rest by" the 
repeated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In the 
case of the Mormon Church v. The United States, Justice Bradley, in 
delivering the opinion of the court, said: 

One pretense for this obstinate course is that their belief in the practice of polyg¬ 
amy, or in the right to indulge in it, is a religious belief, and therefore under the 
protection of the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom. This is altogether a 
sophistical plea. No doubt the Thuge of India imagined that their belief in the 
right of assassination was a religious belief; but their thinking so did not make it so. 
The practice of suttee by the Hindu widows may have sprung from a supposed relig- 



KEED SMOOT. 


17 


ious conviction. The offering of hinnan sacrifices by our own ancestors in Britain 
was no doubt sanc<^ioned by an equally conscientious impulse. But no one on that 
account would hesitate to brand these practices now as crimes against society, and 
obnoxious to condemnation and punishment by the civil authority. 

In the case of Davis v. Beasoii, Justice Field, in delivering the 
opinion of the court, said: 

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian coun¬ 
tries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the 
laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb 
the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more 
pernicious to the best interests of society and receive more general or more deserved 
punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to 
shock the moral judgment of the community. To call their advocacy a tenet of 
religion is to offend the common sense of mankind. 

ONE LIVING IN POLYGA^IOUS COHABITATION IS IN LAW A POLYGAMIST. 

Idle members of the first presidency ttrid twelve apostles of the Mor¬ 
mon Church claim that there is a distinction between what they term 
polygamy—that is, the contracting of plural marriages—and polyga¬ 
mous cohabitation with plural wives. But under the circumstances this 
distinction is little short of ridiculous. As is demonstrated by the testi¬ 
mony, the so-called manifesto was aimed at poh^gamous cohabitation, 
as well as against the taking of plural wives, and it is the veriest 
sophistry to contend that open notorious cohabitation with plural 
wives is less otfensive to public morals than the taking of additional 
wives. Indeed, it is the testimony of some of those who reside in 
communities that are cursed by the evils of polygamy that polyga¬ 
mous cohabitation is fully as offensive to the sense of decency of the 
, inhabitants of those communities as would be the taking of plural 
I wives. 

' And this excuse of the Mormon leaders is as baseless in law as it is 
in morals. In the case of Murphy v. Ramsay, decided by the Supreme 
Court of the United States and reported in the United States Supreme 
Court Reports, volume IIT, page 15, it was decided that any man is a 
polygamist who maintains the relation of husband to a pluralityof 
wives, even though in fact he may cohabit with only one. The court 
further held in the same case that a man occupying this relation to two 
or more women can onl}^ cease to be a polygamist when he has finally 
and full}^ dissolved the relation of husband to several wives. In other 
words, there is and can be no practical difference in law or in morals 
between the offense of taking plural wives and the offense of polyga¬ 
mous cohabitation. The same doctrine is affirmed in the case of Can¬ 
non V. United States (116 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, p. 55). 

MR. SMOOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE ORGANIZATION TO 

WHICH HE BELONGS. 

It is urged in behalf of Mr. Smoot that, conceding it to be true that 
the first president and some of the apostles are living in polygamy 
and that some of the leaders of the Mormon Church encourage polyga¬ 
mous practices, Mr. Smoot himself is not a polygamist, does not 
practice polygamy, and that there is no evidence that he has personally 
and individually encouraged the practice of polygamy by members of 
the Mormon Church, and that he ought not to be condemned because 

S. Rep. 4253, pt 1, 59-1-2 






18 


EEED SMOOT. 


of the acts of his associates. This position is wholly untenable. Mr. 
Smoot is an inseparable part of the governing bod}^ of the Mormon 
Church—the first presidency and twelve apostles—and those who 
compose that organization form a unit, an entirety, and whatever is 
done by that organization is the act of each and ev’^eiy member thereof, 
and whatever policv is adopted and pursued by the body which con¬ 
trols the Mormon Church Mr. Smoot must be held to be responsible 
for as a member of that body. That one may be legally, as well as 
morally, responsible for unlawful acts which he does not himself com¬ 
mit is a rule of law too elementary to require discussion. W hat 
one does by another he does by himself ” is a maxim as old as the com¬ 
mon law. And as the first presidency and twelve apostles of the 
Mormon Church have authority over the spiritual affairs of the mem¬ 
bers of that church, it follows that such governing body of said 
church has supreme authority over the members of that church in 
respect to the practice of pol^^gamy and pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation. 

In England in former years, and under the canon law, matters of 
marriage, divorce, and legitimac}^ were under the jurisdiction of the 
ecclesiastical courts of the Kingdom, in which the punishment was in 
the natui*e of a spiritual penalty for the good of the soul of the offen¬ 
der, this penalty in many cases being that of excommunication or 
expulsion from the church. (1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 431; 3 
Blackstone’s Commentaries, 92; 4 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 153 and 
note; Ke 3 uiolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145, 164-165.) And in 
later years, while the civil law now prohibits and punishes bigamy, 
the authorities of every Christian church in this countiT take cogni¬ 
zance of matrimonial affairs and by the authorit 3 " of the church in 
spiritual matters prevent and punish b 3 " censure or expulsion any 
infraction of the rules of the church regarding marriage. 

The testimonj" taken upon this investigation shows bevond contro¬ 
versy that the authority of the first presidency and the twelve apostles 
of the JMormon Church over the members of said church is such that 
were the said first presidenc 3 ^ and twelve apostles to prohibit the 
practice of polygamy and pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation b 3 ^ its members 
and abandon the practice themselves and expel from the church all 
who should persist in the practice, those offenses woujd instantly cease 
in that church. And the fact that not a single member of the Mormon 
Church has ever fallen into disfavor on account of pol 3 ^gamous prac¬ 
tices is conclusive proof that the ruling authorities of that church 
countenance and encourage polygam 3 ^ 

The conduct of Mr. Smoot in this regard can not be separated from 
that of his associates in the government of the Mormon Church. 
Whatever his private opinions or his private conduct ma 3 " be, he stands 
before the world as an integral part of the organization which encour¬ 
ages, counsels, and approves poUgam}^ which not only fails to dis¬ 
cipline those who break the laws of the countiy, but, on the contrary, 
loads with honors and favors those who are among the most noted 
polygamists within the pale of that church. 

It is an elementary principle of law that where two or more persons 
are associated together in an act, an organization, an enterprise, or a 
course of conduct, which is in its character or purpose unlawful, the 
act of any one of those who are thus associated is the act of all, and 
the act of any number of the associates is the act of each one of the 
others. 


KEED SMOOT. 


19 


i An eminent legal authority says: 

Every person entering into a conspiracy or common design already formed is 
deemed in law a party to all acts done by any of the other parties, before or after¬ 
wards, in furtherance of the common design. The jirinciple on which tlie acts and 
declarations of other conspirators, and acts done at different times, are admitted in 
evidence against the persons prosecuted is that by the act of conspiring together the 
consi)ii-ators have jointly assumed to themselves, as a body, the attribute of individ¬ 
uality so far as regards the prosecution of the common design, thus rendering what¬ 
ever IS done or said by anyone in furtherance of that design a part of the res gestae 
and therefore the act of all. (2 Greenleaf on Evidence, secs. 93, 94. See also 
Commonwealth v. Warren, 6 Mass., 74; People v. Mather, 4 Wend., 229, 260; Peo¬ 
ple V. Peckens, 153 N. Y., 576, 586, 593; United States v. Gooding, 12 Wheaton, 459, 
469; American Fur Company v. United States, 2 Peters, 358, 365; Nudd et al. v. Bur¬ 
rows, 91 U. S., 426, 438; United States v. IMitchell, 1 Hughes, 439 (Federal cases No. 
15790); Stewart v. Johnson, 3 Har. (N. J.), 87; Hinchman v. Ritchie, Brightley’s 
: N. P. (Pa.), 143; Freeman r. Stine, 34 Leg. Ink (Pa.), 95; Spies et al. i\ People, 122 
! Illinois, 1.) 

The case last cited illustrates this principle more forcibly than any 
of the others referred to. In that case, which is commonA known as 
‘‘the anarchists’’ case,” there was, as to some of the defendants, very 
little evidence, and as to others of the defendants no satisfactory evi¬ 
dence that they were present at the commission of the murder with 
which they were charged, or advised or intended the murder which 
was committed by an unknown person. But it was proved that the 
defendants were members of an organization known as the Interna¬ 
tional A.ssociation of Chicago, having for its object the destruction of 
the law and government and incidentally of the police and militia as 
the representatives of law and government, and that some of the 
defendants had, h}^ spoken and printed appeals to workingmen and 
others, urged the use of force, deadl}^ weapons, and dynamite in resist¬ 
ance to the law and its officers. 

In denying the motion for a new trial in the anarchists’case the 
judge who presided at the trial used the following language: 

Now on the question of the instructions, whether these defendants, or any of them, 

. anticipated or expected the throwing of the bomb on the night of the 4th"of May is 
: not a question which I need to consider, because the conviction can not be sustained, 

. if that is necessary to a conviction, however much evidence of it there may be, 
i because the instructions do not go upon that ground. The jury were not instructed 
I to find the defendants guilty if they believed they partici])ated in the throwing of 
! that bomb, or advised or encouraged the throwing of that bomb, or anything of that 
sort. Conviction has not gone upon the ground that they did have any personal 
participation in the particular act which caused the death of Began, but the convic¬ 
tion proceeds upon the ground, under the instructions, that they had generally by 
speech and print, advised large classes of the people, not panticular individuals, but 
large cla.sses, to commit murder, and have left the commission, time, and place, 
to the individual will and whim, or caprice, or whatever it may be, of each individual 
man who listened to their advice and influenced by that advice somebody not known 
did throw the bomb which caused Degan’s death. (Century Magazine, April, 1893, 
p. 835.) 

It will be seen by the decision of the court upon the motion for a 
new trial in the case of Spies et al v. People that the anarchists were 
not convicted upon the ground that they had participated in the mur¬ 
der of which they were convicted. Whether they were or were not 
participants in the commission of this crime was not the main ques¬ 
tion at issue. They were convicted because they belonged to an organi¬ 
zation which, as an organization, advised the commission of acts which 
would lead to murder. 

Of like import is the decision in the case of Davis t?. Beason, decided 
b}^ the Supreme Court of the United States in 1889, the decision being 





20 


REED SMOOT. 


reported in volume 133, United States Supreme Court Reports, page 
333. At the time of this decision the Revised Statutes of the State 
of Idaho provided that no person “who is a member of any order, 
organization, or association which teaches, advises, counsels, or encour¬ 
ages its members, devotees, or an}^ other persons to commit the crime 
of bigani}’ or polygann", or any other crime defined by law, either as 
a rite or ceremony of such order, organization, or association or other¬ 
wise, is permitted to vote at ain^ election or to hold any position or 
office of honor, trust, or profit within this Territory.” 

This provision of law the Supreme Court of the United States held 
to be constitutional and legal. It will be observed that this act dis¬ 
franchises certain persons and makes them ineligible to any position or 
office of honor, trust, or profit, not for committing the crime of polyg¬ 
amy, nor for teaching, advising, counseling, or encouraging others to 
cornmit the crime, but because of their membership in an organization 
which teaches, advises, counsels, and encourages others to commit the 
crime of polygamy. In Wooley v. Watkins (2 Idaho Rep., 555, 5()6), 
the court say: 

Orders, organizations, and associations, by whatever name they may be called, 
which teach, advise, counsel, or encourage the practice or commission of acts for¬ 
bidden by law, are criminal organizations. To become and continue to be members 
of such organizations or associations are such overt acts of recognition and participa¬ 
tion as make them particeps criminis and as guilty, in contemplation of criminal law, 
as though they actually engaged in furthering their unlawful objects and purposes. 
(See also Innis v. Bolton, 2 Idaho Rep., 407, 414.) 

It being a fact that the first presidency and the twelve apostles of the 
Mormon Church teach, advise, counsel, and encourage the members of 
that church to practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, which 
are contrary to both law and morals, and Mr. Smoot, being a member 
of that organization, he must fall under the'same condemnation. 

And the rule in civil cases is the same as that which obtains in the 
administration of criminal law. One who is a member of an association 
of any nature is bound by the action of his associates, whether he favors 
or disapproves of such action. He can at any time protect himself from 
the consequences of any future action of his associates by withdrawing 
from the association, but while he remains a member of the association 
he is responsible for whatever his associates may do. 

MR. SMOOT HAS COUNTENANCED AND ENCOURAGED POLYGAMY. 

But the complicity of Mr. Smoot in the conduct of the leaders of the 
Mormon Church in encouraging polyganw and pol^^gamous cohabita¬ 
tion does not consist wholly in the fact that he is one of the governing 
body of that church. By repeated acts, and in a number of instances, 
Mr. Smoot has, as a member of the quorum of the twelve apostles, 
given active aid and support to the menibers of the first presidency and 
twelve apostles in their defiance of the laws of the State of Utah and of 
the laws of common decency, and their encouragement of polygamous 
practices b}" both precept and example. 

It is shown by the testimony of Mr. Smoot himself that he assisted 
in the elevation of Joseph F. Smith to the presidency of the Mormon 
Church. ITat he has since repeatedly voted to sustain said Joseph F. 
Smith, and that he so voted after full knowledge that said Joseph F. 
Sniith was living in polygamous cohabitation and had asserted his 
intention to continue in this course in defiance of the laws of God and 


KEED SMOOT. 


21 


man. He also assisted in the selection of Heber J. Grant as president 
of a mission when it was a matter of common notoriety that said Heber 
J. Grant was a polygamist. He voted for the election of Charles W. 
Penrose as an apostle of the Mormon Church after testimony had been 
given in this investigation showing him to be a polygamist. It is dif¬ 
ficult to perceive how Mr. Smoot could have given greater encourage¬ 
ment to polygamy and polygamous cohabitation than b}^ thus assisting 
in conferring one of the highest honors and offices in the Moianon 
Church on one who had been and was then guilG^ of these crimes. As 
trustee of an educational institution he made no protest against the 
continuance in office of Benjamin Cluff, jr., a noted polygamist, as 
president of that institution, nor made any effort to discover the truth 
that said Cluff had taken another plural wife long after the manifesto. 
Nor did he make any protest, as such trustee, against the election of 
George H. Brimhall, another polygamist, in the place of Benjamin 
Cluff, jr. 

Since his election as an apostle of the Mormon Church Mr. Smoot 
has been intimately associated with the first president and with those 
who—with himself—constitute the council of the twelve apostles. 
The fact that many of these officials were living in polygamous rela¬ 
tions with a number of wives was a matter of such common knowledge 
in the community that it is incredible that Mr. Smoot should not have 
had sufficient notice of this condition of affairs to at least have put 
him on inquiry. If he did not know of these facts, it was because 
he took pains not to be informed of them. At no time has he uttered 
a syllable of protest against the conduct of his associates in the lead- 
I ership of the Mormon Church, but, on the contrary, has sustained 
them in their encouragement of polygamy and polj^gamous cohabita- 
: tion, both b}^ his acts (as hereinbefore set forth) and by his silence. 

In the judgment of the committee, Mr. Smoot is no more entitled to 
1 a seat in the Senate than he would be if he were associating in polyga- 
i mous cohabitation with a plurality of wives. 

DOMINATION OF LEADERS OF THE MORMON CHURCH IN SECULAR 

AFFAIRS. 

A careful examination and consideration of the testimon}^ taken 
before the committee in this investigation leads to the conclusion that 
the allegations in the protest concerning the domination of the leaders 
of the Mormon Church in secular affairs are true, and that the first 
presidency and twelve apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-Day Saints exercise a controlling inffuence over the action of 
the members of that church in secular affairs as well as in spiritual 
matters; and that contrary to the principles of the common law, under 
which we live, and the constitution of the State of Utah, the said first 
presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church dominate the 
affairs of the State and constantly interfere in the performance of its 
functions. The domination by the leaders of the church under their 
claim to exercise divine authority in all matters is manifested in a 
general wa}^ in innumerable instances. 

The right to-do so is openlv claimed by those who profess to speak 
in behalf of the church. As late as February 25, 1904, one of the 
twelve apostles, in a public address, said ‘‘that from the view point 
of the gospel there could be no separation of temporal and spiritual 





22 


KEED SMOOT. 


things, and those who object to church people advising and taking' part 
in temporal things have no true conception of the gospel of Christ 
and the mission of the church.” 

The method by which the first presidency and twelve apostles of the 
Mormon Church direct all the temporal affairs of the members of that 
church under the claim that such direction is by divine authority, is 
by requiring the members of the church in all their affairs, both 
spiritual and temporal, and especially the latter, to ‘‘take counsel.” 
This means that they are to be advised by their immediate supe¬ 
riors. These superiors in turn take their instructions from those 
above them, and so on back to the point whence most, if not all, these 
directions emanate—that is, the first presidency and twelve apostles. 

As was said by Mr. (ffiief Justice Zane, of Utah, in 1887: 

At the head of this corporate body, according to the faith professed, is a seer and 
revelator, who receives in revelations the will of the infinite God concerning the 
duty that man owes to himself, to his fellow-beings, to society, to human government, ' 
and to God. In subordination to this head are a vast number of officials of various 
kinds and descriptions, comprising a most minute and complete organization. The 
people comprising this organization claim to direct and lead by inspiration which is 
above all human wisdom, subject to a power above all municipal government, above 
all man-made law. (Vol. 1, p. 809.) 

The phrase “ take counsel” does not mean that the members of the il 
church shall inquire of those above them in all cases concerning their j 
action, but that they shall receive counsel—that is, direction—from 
those above them, and this counsel they are to implicitly obey. If 
they fail to do so they are excommunicated from the church and j 
deprived, not only of the privileges of membership in the church, but, 
as they are assured and believe, they thereby forfeit all hope of hap¬ 
piness in a future life. The absolute submission of the great mass of j' 
the Mormon Church is illustrated by the fact that it is laid down b}^ i 
the leaders of the church as a cardinal principle to the members that, j 
if their file leaders say white is black, “it is their duty to say ‘white 
is black.’” 

Instances of the interference of the leaders of the Mormon Church 
in the secular affairs of their followers could be multiplied almost 
without number. 

In one case a bishop of the church was deposed from his offices in 
the church because he promised to obey the laws against polygamy. 

Another official of the Mormon Church was excommunicated for 
belonging to an organization for the enforcement of the laws and 
opposing the interference of the church in public affairs. 

Another Mormon official was degraded in the church for refusing 
to obey his file leader. 

In another case the members of a firm doing business in Salt Lake 
City were expelled from the Mormon Church because they persisted 
in engaging in mining operations contrary to the command of the j 
authorities of the church. | 

In another instance the church authorities interfered in the matter 1 
of the establishment of an electric-light plant. ; 

In 1903 two members of the Mormon Church who built a dancing ' 
pavilion in opposition to the “ counsel ” of the church authorities were : 
summoned for trial and excommunication, and finally compromised ! 
the matter by turning over to the church officials the management of ^ 
the pavilion and 25 per cent of the net earnings. 

In another case there was a general understanding that the church, 







KEED SMOOT. 


23 


by its authorities, directed the location of a railroad station. In 1869 
four members of the Mormon Church were excommunicated for 
apostacy in desiring ‘‘to open up mines against the teachings of the 
holy priesthood.” 

In another and recent instance, occurring as late as the early part 
of ^903, a Mormon official was deposed from his official position for 
writing a letter to a newspaper criticising Mr. Smoot and his political 
ambitions. 

In another instance, occurring in 1897, a Mormon official was deposed 
from his official relation to the church for distributing at a school elec¬ 
tion a ticket different from that prescribed by the church authorities. 

In the year 1905 a teacher in the Mormon Church was cut otf from 
the church for apostasy, the ostensible foundation for this charge being 
a criticism of the head of the church for his polygamous practices; the 
real ground being that the accused had persisted in engaging in the 
manufacture of salt, against the interests of the president of the church 
and some of his associates. 

In what is known as the Birdsall case the officials of the Mormon 
Church assumed jurisdiction of a controversy concerning the title to 
real estate, and not only directed a conve 3 ^ance of the title to a tract 
of land, but went further and enforced its decree by spiritual penalties. 
As has already been stated, no member of the Mormon Church (with 
possibly a single exception) has ever been disciplined for polygamy 
or polygamous cohabitation in defiance of the law and of the mani¬ 
festo; but an obscure and feeble woman was excommunicated from the 
church and driven to the verge of insanity for refusing to obey the 
dictates of the church leaders and relinquish the title to a piece of 
land in favor of one who had no shadow of legal title thereto. As 
was testified by one of the witnesses for the protestants: 

Whenever a man disregards the teachings and instructions or counsels of the lead¬ 
ers of the church he has the spirit of apostasy. 

A forcible illustration of the domination of the leaders of the Mor¬ 
mon Church over the secular affairs of the people is furnished by the 
fact that while a majority of these leaders have for years been living 
in polygamous relations, in defiance of law, no one dares to attempt to 
bring them to justice for fear of the consequences which would be vis¬ 
ited V>y the church on the one who should make the complaint. And 
whenever one has been daring enough to make complaint for polyga¬ 
mous cohabitation against any member of the church the officers of 
the law have refused to prosecute, or those who were prosecuted and 
convicted have been released after the infliction of a merely nominal 
punishment. 

The control which the governing bod}^ of the Mormon Church exer¬ 
cises over the secular affairs of the State of Utah is well illustrated by 
the fact that for man}^ years past what are known as “ religion classes” 
have been taught in connection with the public schools of that State. 
In these classes the youth of Utah are instructed in the doctrines of 
the Mormon Church by teachers in the public schools, supported by 
State taxation, the course of study being prescribed by officials of the 
church. This course of study includes the lives of noted Mormons 
whose chief claim to eminence in the church lies in their having taken 
a multiplicity of wives and in their continuance in the crime of polyga¬ 
mous cohabitation. 




24 


REED SMOOT. 


The teaching of the doctrines, faith, and practice of the Mormon 
Church in the public schools of Utah, under the direction of the high 
priesthood of the church, is not only contrary to the general law gov¬ 
erning the use of schoolhouses as expounded by the courts of this 
country, but is also expressly forbidden b}^ the constitution of the 
State of Utah, which provides, in article 1, section 4, as follows: 

No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious 
worship, exercises, or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establish¬ 
ment. (Schofield v. School Dist., 27 Conn., 499; Spencer v. Joint School Dist., 15 
Kans., 259; School Districts. Arnold, 21 Wis., 657-.) 

Such teaching is also prohibited by a statute of the State of Utah, 
which declares that ‘'No atheistic, infidel, sectarian, religious, or 
denominational doctrines shall be taught in any of the district schools 
of this State.” (Revised Statutes of Utah, sec. 1848.) 

The conduct of the ruling authorities of the Mormon Church in 
directing the teaching of ‘'’religion classes” in the schoolhouses of 
Utah affords a fair illustration of the contempt with which the rulers 
of that church treat all laws and restrictions which stand in the way i 
of their desires, or of their own interests or what they conceive to be 
the interests of the church of which they are the head. ^ | 

The fact that these religion classes have been discontinued since j 
their existence was revealed by this investigation serves to emphasize 
the truth that the Mormon Church dominates the affairs of the State ' 
of Utah in educational matters as well as. in other respects. i 

POLITICAL DOMINATION OF THE MORMON CHURCH. j 

But it is in political affairs that the domination of the first presidency 
and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church is most efficacious and most 
injurious to the interests of the State. The constitution of the State i 

of Utah provides “There shall be no union of church and state, nor j 

shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions.” j 

(Vol. 1, p. 25.) Notwithstanding this plain provision of the constitution ; 

of Utah, the proof offered on the investigation demonstrates beyond 
the possibility of doubt that the hierarchy at the head of the Mormon 
Church has for years past formed a perfect union between the Mor¬ 
mon Church and the State of Utah, and that the church through its 
head dominates the affairs of the State in things both great and small. 
Even before statehood was an accomplished fact, and while the State 
was in process of formation, and afterwards, during the sessions of the 
first and succeeding legislatures, it was notorious that a committee 
appointed b\^ the leaders of the Mormon Church was supervising the j 
legislation of the State. 

At about the same time, or shortl}^ prior thereto, it became known 
throughout Utah that the leading officials of the IMormon Church i 
desired that the voters belonging to that church should so divide on 
political lines that about one-half should belong to one of the great 
political parties of the nation and the other half to the other party, 
leaving a considerable number unassigned to either party% so that 
their votes could be cast for one party or the other, as might be nec- 
^ essary to further the interests of that church. 

^ ^ It is, of course, intended by the leaders of the church that this 
influence shall be secretly exerted, and this is in many cases, if not in 
most cases, easily accomplished by means of the perfect machinery of 





EEED SMOOT. 


25 


the church, which has been adverted to, by which the will of the first 
presidency and twelve apostles is transmitted through ecclesiastical 
channels, talked over in prayer circles of the high councils of the 
church, and then promulgated to the members of the church as “ the 
will of the Lord.” Notwithstanding this attempt at secrecy, it has 
for man}^ years been a matter of common knowledge among the people 
of those States in which the Mormon Church is strongest that political 
influence is being continually exerted in the matter of State and lower 
municipal officiaTs. As was said by one of the witnesses who testified 
on the investigation: ‘‘Whenever they indorse a man, he will be elected. 
Whenever they put upon him the seal of their disapprobation, he will 
not be.” 

It was shown in the investigation that in the State of Idaho candi¬ 
dates for office, in order to have any hope of success, must visit Salt 
Lake City and arrange for such success with the leaders of the Mor¬ 
mon Church. The result of this is that whatever the Mormon Church 
desires to have done, either by way of legislation or in the way of 
administration of the affiiirs of the State, is done, and whatever the 
Mormon Church desires shall not be done, is not done. So well rec¬ 
ognized is this fact that in a State convention held in Idaho in the year 
1904 one of the leading Mormons made the proposition that in case a 
certain resolution should be withdrawn he would go to Utah and ask 
the president of the Mormon Church to cease interfering in Idaho 
politics. Thus it appears that the Mormon Church dominates the 
affairs of the State of Idaho to an extent only less than it does the 
affairs of the State of Utah. As an illustration of this fact, it was 
' shown that a bill in which the Mormon Church was vitally interested 
I was passed by the legislature of Idaho shortly after the visit of one 
I of the apostles of the Mormon Church, who came there for the pur¬ 
pose of procuring such legislation. 

' A striking illustration of the power of the Mormon Church in Utah 
in matters of legislation appears in the history of what is known as 
the “Evans bill,” which was passed by both houses of the legislature 
of Utah in 1901, in order to prevent prosecutions for polygamous 
cohabitation. This bill was favored by the president of the Mormon 
Church and by a majority of the apostles and was passed by a Mor- 
I mon legislature. It was vetoed by a Mormon governor, the principal 
reason foi* the veto being that the attempted legislation would bring 
about an amendment to the Constitution of the United States under 
which those guilty of the crime of polygamous cohabitation would be 
prosecuted and punished in the Federal courts. 

Perhaps one of the most instructive instances of the exercise of the 
power of the Mormon Church in political affairs was in the matter 
referred to in the protest as the case of Moses Thatcher. In that case 
the testimonj^ taken before the committee leaves no doubt that not far 
from the time when the leaders of the Mormon Church required their 
followers to divide between the two parties, it was ordered by the Mor¬ 
mon leaders that those officials of the church who desired to engage in 
politics in behalf of one of the political parties should go out and influ¬ 
ence the people of the Mormon Church in favor of that party, while 
those who were of the contrary opinion should remain at home and not 
attempt to influence the members of that church to adopt their way of 
thinking. Mr. Thatcher saw fit to disobey this edict and not only to 
become a candidate for the United States Senate, but to go out among 





26 


EEED SMOOT. 


the people and endeavor to win converts to the party of which he was 
a member. For this ott'ense against the political dictation of the first 
presidencv and twelv’^e apostles, Mr. Thatcher was deposed from his 
position as an apostle, df'prived of all his offices in the Mormon Church, 
denied the privileges which are accorded to every Mormon in good 
standing, and the whole influence of the leaders of the Mormon Church 
was put forth to compass his defeat. 

As was well said by Mr. Thatcher at the time of this occurrence, 
this action on the part of the ruling authorities of the church trans¬ 
formed the Mormon Church into a great political machine, the steer¬ 
ing apparatus of which was in the hands of the twelve or fifteen men 
at the head. All this occurred because Mr. Thatcher refused to “ take 
counsel”—that is, to follow the dictates of the Mormon Church as 
to who should become candidates for office and who should not 
become such. j 

Specific directions given by the heads of the Mormon' Church to 1 
those under them seem to have varied according to circumstances, j 
Several years ago, and before the admission of Utah into the Union as | 
a State, it would appear that the apostles of the Mormon Church would ;j 
convey to the members of that church instructions concerning their j 
political action open!}’ and in public addresses. The people would be 
told from the pulpits of the Mormon Church what ticket they ought ! 
to support. !j 

As late as 1892 a bishop of the Mormon Church called together a |j 
number of the members of that church who belonged to a party oppos- :i 
ing the part}" of the bishop, and told those whom he had thus called 
together that he had received a message from the first presidency to 
the effect that the candidate of the party to which the bishop belonged I 
should be elected to Congress. In the same 3 ^ear arid at the same 
election the president of the Mormon Church took occasion to write 
a letter to tlie bishops of his church indorsing the candidacy of a 
certain gentleman for Representative in Congress. In 1898 one of the 
apostles of the Mormon Church in a letter to one of the first presidents 
of seventies virtually advocated the election of a certain candidate for 
a seat in the United States Senate. 

In 1902 an apostle of the Mormon Church went through one of the 
counties of Idaho, telling the Mormon voters that it was the will of 
the church that they should vote a certain ticket. 

In later years the method of domination by the Mormon Church in 
political affairs has been, to a great extent, b}^ means of a rule requir¬ 
ing those of any prominence in the church to “take counsel” before 
becoming candidates for public office. This virtually puts into the 
hands of the Mormon priesthood the filling of the various offices in 
the State. If the church takes to itself the right to decide who shall 
be the candidates for offices, there is no other choice left to either 
candidates or people. Under this rule the people can not vote for 
anyone who is a prominent member of the Mormon Church unless the 1 
ruling authorities of the church permit him to be a candidate. This j 
rule thereby becomes a species of political usurpation, striking at the 
very foundations of our Government. Our entire political system is 
based on the theory that every voter has the right to vote for anyone 
he pleases, and that the people have a right to call upon whomsoever 
the}" will to represent them and to administer the affairs of the nation 






REED SMOOT. 


27 


and of the Commonwealth. But the rule which has been promulgated 
and enforced by the officials of the Mormon Church precludes any 
member of that church from serving the nation or the State unless he 
has been designated for such service by the hierarchy which governs 
said church. This means that the State shall subsist in all things in 
and through the ‘‘counsel” of the church. 

The pretext under which the leaders of the Mormon Church excuse 
their selection of candidates for public office is that it is a rule of the 
church designed to prevent high officials in the church from becoming 
engaged in public affiiirs to the neglect of their ecclesiastical functions. 

This veil is too thin to conceal the real motives and designs of the 
Mormon priesthood. Were that the true reason for the adoption of 
the rule, it would be made to appl}" to all the higher officials of the 
Mormon Church under all circumstances and all would-be prohibited 
from becoming candidates for public offices. And in such case the 
object of the rule would be attained by requiring of every church 
officer who becomes a candidate for public office that he resign his 
church office, and this without favor or distinction. 

But the rule is not so framed or administered. Under this rule one 
may be a candidate for public office or nia^^ not be, according to the 
will of the first presidency and twelve apostles of the Mormon Church. 
Under the rule, as it is applied, one of the twelve apostles may be 
elected to the Senate (as in the case of Mr. Smoot) or he ma}^ be 
defeated (as in the case of Mr. Thatcher). If one of the higher offi¬ 
cials of the Morman Church becomes a candidate for puldic offic.e he 
may retain his official station in the church, as in the case of Mr. 
Smoot and Mr. Roberts, or he may be broken of his office and deprived 
of his privileges in the church, as happened to Mr. Thatcher, these 
differing applications of the rule depending wholly on the will or 
caprice of the first presidency and the twelve apostles. Under this 
rule Mr. Roberts was defeated for the office of Representative in Con- 
gre^s and under the rule he was afterwards elected to the same office. 

But the domination of the higher officials in the Mormon Church 
does not cease with the selection by them of a candidate for public 
office. It is a fact of no little importance in this case that where the 
Mormon Church is strong the candidates favored by the ruling authori¬ 
ties of that church are generall}; elected. 

The fact that Gentiles are sometimes elected to office in preference 
to Mormons in localities where the Mormons are in the ascendency 
does not tend to prove the absence of church influence. It is shown 
by the testimony that the officials of the Mormon Church sometimes 
prefer one Mormon to another and sometimes prefer a Gentile to a 
Mormon. So well is it understood in Utah that the power of the 
Mormon Church in political affairs must be recognized and deferred to 
that in the election of Senators and of other officials the Mormons 
must be given what they claim as their share of the offices to be filled. 

In order to realize the potency of the influence which the ruling 
authorities of the Mormon Church exercise in political affairs, it must 
be kept in mind that this influence proceeds from men who are believed 
by their followers to be oracles of God; that whatsoever they speak 
is the word of God; and that the first presidency of the Mormon 
Church and the council of the twelve apostles are “the mouthpiece 
of God.” In the efforts put forth by the rulers of the church to 





28 


REED SMOOT. 


defeat ^Nloses Thatcher, the Mormon people were told that the first 
presidency and eleven of the apostles were inspired and that Moses 
Thatcher, the twelfth apostle, was not inspired. 

The committee has not overlooked nor failed to give due considera¬ 
tion to the testimony of witnesses called in behalf of Mr.^ Smoot, who 
testified that there was no interference by the Morriion Church in the 
political affairs of Utah or Idaho. But, leaving out of consideration 
an}^ political or personal bias for Mr. Smoot which those witnesses mav 
have manifested, there is very little in their testimony aside from and 
beyond their individual opinion and judgment as regards the political 
conditions in the States named. The testimony of these witnesses in 
no way controverts the facts before referred to, from which facts the 
conclusion is irresistible that the controlling authorities of the Mor¬ 
mon Church do dominate the political affairs of the State of Utah and 
control to some extent the political affairs of the State of Idaho. With¬ 
out disproof of these facts, or strong proof of countervailing facts, 
mere opinions of witnesses, however intelligent and however candid, 
do not suffice. 

Not only is Mr. Smoot one of those by and through whom the polit¬ 
ical affairs of Utah are dominated, but his election to the Senate was, 
it is believed, the result of such domination. 

When Mr. Smoot concluded to become a candidate for the Senate, 
he was careful to obtain the ‘‘consent” of the first presidenc}^ and 
twelve apostles to his candidac 3 ^ But this so-called “consent” of 
the rulers of the church was naturally regarded by the people of Utah, 
who were familiar with the wa^^s of the Mormon high-priesthood, as 
being, under the circumstances, equivalent to an indorsement and made 
it impossible for anyone else to become an aspirant for the same posi¬ 
tion with an 3 " hope of success. 

A PRACTICAL UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE. 

The fact that the adherents of the Mormon Church hold the balance 
of power in politics in some of the States enables the first presidency 
and twelve apostles to control the political affairs of those States to 
any extent they may desire. Thus, a complete union of church and 
State is formed. This is in accordance with the teachings of the priest¬ 
hood of the Mormon Church, as promulgated in the writings of men 
of high authority in the church, to the effect that the church is supreme 
in all matters of government, as well as in all things pertaining to the 
private life of the citizen. In one of a series of pamphlets, ‘'On the 
Doctrines of the Gospel,” b}^ Apostle Orson Pratt, it is affirmed: 

The kingdom of God is an order of government established by divine authority. 
It is the only legal government that can exist in any part of the universe. All other 
governments are illegal and unauthorized. God having made all beings and worlds 
has the supreme right to govern them by His own laws and by officers of His own 
appointment. Any people attempting to govern themselves and by laws of their 
own making and by officers of their own appointment, are in direct rebellion against 
the kingdom of God. (Vol. 1, p. 666.) 

The union of church and state in those States under the domination 
of the Mormon leaders is most abhorrent to our free institutions. 
John Adams declared that, the attempt of the Church of Pmgland to 
extend its jurisdiction over the colonies “contributed as much as any 
other cause to arouse the attention, not ordy of the inquiring mind but 







REED SMOOT. 


29 


of the common people, and to urge them to close thinking of the con¬ 
stitutional authority of Parliament over the colonies” and to bring on 
the war of independence. After the colonies had achieved their inde¬ 
pendence, the complete enfranchisement of the church from the con¬ 
trol of the state, and of the state from the control of the church was 
brought about through the ehorts of men like Thomas Jefferson and 
James Madison in Virginia, and those of almost equal prominence in 
other States. And thus the natural desire of the people of this nation 
for the entire separation of church and state was incorporated in the 
Constitution of the United States by the first amendment to that 
instrument. 

The right to worship God according to the dictates of one’s own 
conscience is one of the most sacred rights of every American citizen, 
j No less sacred is the right of every citizen to vote according to his 
conscientious convictions without interference on the part of any 
church, religious organization, or body of ecclesiastics which seeks to 
i control his political opinions or direct in anyway his use of the elective 
franchise. 

In the interest of religious freedom and to protect the State from 
i the influence of the Mormon Church, the framers of the constitution 
I of Utah incorporated in that instrument the provision which has been 
quoted in a preceding part of this report. That provision of the con- 
' stitution of Utah has been persistentl}^ and contemptuously disregarded 
by the first presidency and the twelve apostles of the Mormon Church 
ever since Utah was admitted into the Union. The}^ have paid as lit- 
, tie regard to this mandate of the constitution of Utah as they have to 
the law Avhich prohibits pol 3 ^gamy and the law which forbids pol 3 ^ga- 
mous cohabitation. 

OATH OF VENGEANCE. 

In the protest signed and verified by the oath of Mr. Leilich it is 
I claimed that Mr. Smoot has taken an oath as an apostle of the Mormon 
! Church which is of such a nature as to render him incompetent to hold 
' the office of Senator. From the testimon 3 ^ taken it appears that Mr. 
j Smoot has taken an obligation which is prescribed by the Mormon 
I Church and administered to those who go through a ceremony known 
as ‘‘taking the endowments.” It was testified by a number of wit¬ 
nesses who were examined during the investigation that one part of 
this obligation is expressed in substantially these words: 

You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease 
to pray Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and 
that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto 
the third and fourth generation. 

An effort was made to destroy the effect of the testimony of three of 
these witnesses by impeachment of their reputation for veracity. This 
impeaching testimony was not strengthened by the fact that the wit¬ 
nesses by whom it was given were members of the Mormon Church, 
and would naturally disparage the truthfulness of one who would give 
testimony unfavorable to that church. The testimony of the witnesses 
for the protestants, before referred to, was corroborated by the testi¬ 
mony of Mr. Dougall, a witness sworn in behalf of Mr. Smoot, and 
no attempt was made to impeach the character of this witness. ^ It is 
true that a number of .witnesses testified that no such obligation is 





80 


HEED SMOOT. 


contained in the endowment ceremoii}^; but it is a very siispicious cir¬ 
cumstance that every one of the witnesses who made this denial refused 
to state tlie obligation imposed on those who^ take part in the ceremony. 

The evidence showing that such an obligation is taken is further 
supported by proof that during the endowment cerenionies a praA^er 
is offered asking God to avenge the blood of floseph bmith upon this 
nation, and certain verses from the Bible are read which are claimed 
to justifv the obligation and the pra 3 ^er. The fact that such a pravei 
is offered and that such passages from the Bible are read was not dis¬ 
puted bv any witness who was sworn on the investigation. Nor was 
it questioned that by the term “the prophets” as used in the endow¬ 
ment ceremony, reference is made to Joseph and H^u’um Smith. 

That an obligation of vengeance is part of the endowment ceremony 
is further attested by the fact that shortly after testimony had been 
given on that subject before the committee, Bishop Daniel Connelly of 
the Mormon Church denounced the witnesses who had given this testi¬ 
mony as traitors who had broken their oaths to the church. 

The fact that an oath of vengeance is part of the endowment cere¬ 
monies and the nature and character of such oath was judiciall}' deter¬ 
mined in the third judicial court of Utah in the year 1889 in the matter 
of the application of John Moore and others to become citizens of the 
United States. In an opinion den 3 dng the application, the court say: 

In these applications the usual evidence on behalf of the applicants as to residence, 
moral character, etc., was introduced at a former hearing and was deemed sufficient. 
Objection was made, however, to the admission of John Moore and William J. Edgar 
upon the ground that they were members of the Mormon Church, and also because 
they had gone through the endowment house of that church and there had taken 
an oath or obligation incompatible with the oath of citizenship they would be 
required to take if admitted. * * * 

Those otjjecting to the right of these applicants to be admitted to citizenship intro¬ 
duced eleven witnesses who had been members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter 
Day Saints, commonly called the “Mormon Church.” Several of these witnesses had 
held the position of bishop in the church, and all had gone through the endowment 
house and participated in its ceremonies. The testimony of these witnesses is to the 
effect that every member of the church is expected to go through the endowment 
house, and that nearly all do so; that marriages are usually solemnized there, and 
that those who are married elsewhere go through the endowment ceremonies at as 
early date thereafter as practicable in order that the marital relations shall con¬ 
tinue throughout eternity. 

On behalf of the applicants fourteen witnesses testified concerning the endowment 
ceremonies, but all of them declined to state what oaths are taken, or what obliga¬ 
tions or covenants are there entered into, or what penalties are attached to their vio¬ 
lation; and these witnesses, when asked for their reason for declining to answer, 
stated that they did so “on a point of honor,” while several stated they had for¬ 
gotten what was said about avenging the blood of the prophets. * * * 

The witnesses for the applicants, while refusing to disclose the oaths, promises, 
and covenants of the endowment ceremonies and the penalties attached thereto, tes¬ 
tified generally that there was nothing in the ceremonies inconsistent with loy¬ 
alty to the Government of the United States, and that the Government was not 
mentioned. One of the objects of this investigation is to ascertain whether the oaths 
and obligations of the endowment house are incompatible with good citizenship, 
and it is not for applicants’ witnesses to determine this question. The refusal of 
applicants’ witnesses to state specifically what oath, obligations, or covenants are 
taken or entered into in the (teremonies renders their testimony of but little value, 
and tends to confirm rather than contradict the evidence on this point offered by the 
objectors. The evidence established beyond any reasonable doubt that the endow¬ 
ment ceremonies are inconsistent with the oath an applicant for citizenship is required 
to take, and that the oaths, obligations, or covenants there made or entered into are 
incompatible with the obligations and duties of citizens of the United States. (Vol. 
4, pp. 340-343.) 




EEED SMOOT. 


31 


The obligation hereinbefore set forth is an oath of disloyalty to the 
Government which the rules of the Mormon Church require, or at 
least encourage, every member of that organization to take. 

It is in harmony with the views and conduct of the leaders of the Mor¬ 
mon people in former days, when the^^ openly defied the Government of 
the United States, and is also in harmony with the conduct of those 
who give the law to the Mormon Church to-day in their defiant disre¬ 
gard of the laws against polygamy and polygamous cohabitation. It 
may be that man v of those who take this obligation do so without real¬ 
izing its treasonable import; but the fact that the first presidency and 
twelve apostles retain an obligation of that nature in the ceremonies 
of the church shows that at heart thev are hostile to this nation and 
dislo\"al to its Government. 

And the same spirit of dislo 3 "alty is manifested also in a number of 
the h\unns contained in the collection of hvmns put forth b}^ the 
rulers of the Mormon Church to be sung b^" Mormon congregations. 

There can be no (juestion in regard to the taking of the oath of 
vengeance by Mr. Smoot. He testified that he went through the 
ceremony of taking the endowments in the year 1880 and the head of 
the Mormon Church stated in his testimony that the ceremony is novv 
the same that it has alwa 3 ^s been. 

An obligation of the nature of the one before mentioned would seem 
to be wholU^ incompatible with the duty which Mr. Smoot as a mem¬ 
ber of the United States Senate would owe to the nation. It is diffi¬ 
cult to conceive how one could discharge the obligation which rests 
upon eveiy Senator to so perform his official duties as to promote the 
welfare of the people of the United States and at the same time be 
calling down the vengeance of heaven on this nation because of the 
killing of the founders of the Mormon Church sixty 3 ^ears ago. 

MR. SMOOT NOT ENTITLED TO A SEAT IN THE SENATE. 

The more deliberately and carefulh^ the testimon 3 ^ taken on the 
investigation is considered, the more irresistibly it leads to the con¬ 
clusion that the facts stated in the protest are true; that Mr. Smoot 
is one of a self-perpetuating body of men, known as the first presi- 
denc 3 ^ and twelve apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter- 
Day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church; that these men 
claim divine authority to control the members of said church in all 
things, temporal as w^ell as spiritual; that this authority is, and has 
been for several years past, so exercised b 3 ^ the said first presidency 
and twelve apostles as to encourage the practice of polygamy and 
polygamous cohabitation in the State of Utah and elsewhere, contrar 3 ^ 
to the constitution and laws of the State of Utah and the law of the 
land; that the said first presidency and twelve apostles do now control, 
and for a long time past have controlled, the political affairs of the 
State of Utah, and have thus brought about in said State a union of 
church and state, contrary to the constitution of said State of Utah 
and contrary to the Constitution of the United States, and that said 
Eeed Smoot comes here, not as the accredited representative of the 
State of Utah in the Senate of the United States, but as the choice of 
the hierarchy which controls the church and has usurped the functions 
of the State in said State of Utah. 




32 


REED SMOOT. 


It follows, as a necessary conclusion from these facts, that Mr. Smoot 
is not entitled to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State of 
Utah, and 3 ^oar committee report the following resolution: 

Resolved^ That lieed Smoot is not entitled to a seat as a Senator of 
the United States from the State of Utah. 

J. C. Burrows, 

Chairman, 





Calendar No., 4019 . 


59th Congress, ) 

SENATE. 

JRept.4253, 

1st Session. ) 


1 Part 2. 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


June 11, 1906.—Ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Foraker, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, sub¬ 
mitted the following as the 

VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 

[Senate Resolution 205, Fifty-seventh Congress, second session.] 

The undersigned members of the Committee on Privileges and Elec¬ 
tions, having had under consideration Senate Resolution No. 205, 
Fifty-seventh Congress, second session, adopted January 27, 1903, 
being unable to agree with the majority of the committee, submit the 
following minority report. 

They attach hereto and make a part hereof a full statement of the 
case, showing all charges affecting or intending to affect the right and 
title of Reed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as a Senator from the State 
of Utah, together with an abstract of all the material, relevant, and 
competent testimony offered with respect thereto, and their conclu¬ 
sions deduced therefrom. 

They ask that the same may be printed for purposes of reference as 
a part of this report, and respectfully refer to the same as a more com¬ 
plete statement of the following findings and propositions, and the tes- 
timon}^ and arguments in support of the same, upon which they base 
their dissent from the conclusions and report of the majorit 3 " of the 
committee. 

1 . 

Reed Smoot possesses all the qualifications prescribed by the Con¬ 
stitution to make him eligible to a seat in the Senate, and the regularity 
of his election b}^ the legislature of the State of Utah is not questioned 
in any manner. 

II. 

Aside from his connection with the Mormon Church, so far as his 
private character is concerned, it is, according to all the witnesses, 
irreproachable, for all who testify on the subject agree or concede 








IN RE REED SMOOT. 




that he has led and is leading an upright life, entirel}" free from im¬ 
moral practices of every kind. He is not a polygamist; has never had 
but one wife, and has been noted from early manhood for his opposi¬ 
tion to plural marriages, and probably did as much as any other mem¬ 
ber of the Mormon Church to bring about the prohibition of further 
plural marriages. 

III. 

So far as mere belief and membership in the Mormon Church are 
concerned he is fully within his rights and privileges under the guar- 
anty of religious fi’eedom given b}^ the Constitution of the United ' 
States, for there is no statutory provision, and could not be, prohibit- 
ing either such belief or such membership. » 

Moreover, having special reference to the Mormons residing in ' 
Utah and their peculiar belief, it was provided in the act of Congress, i 
passed July 16, 1891, that the people of Utah should provide in their j 
constitution “by ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the I 
United Stiites and the people of said States— ' 

“ 1 . That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, i 
and that no inhabitants of said State shall ever be molested in person or 
property on account of his or her mode of religious worship: Provided^ \ 
that polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.” 

In consequence there was embodied in the constitution of the State ! 
of Utah a compliance with this requirement, and thereupon the ^ 
Territory was duly admitted as a State of the Union. J 

Accordingly, members of the Mormon Church, open and avowed 
believers in its doctrines and teachings, have been admitted without 
question to both Houses of Congress as Representatives of the State. 


IV. 

There remain but two grounds on which the right or title of Reed 
Smoot to his seat in the Senate is contested. They are: 

shown to have taken what is spoken of in the record 
as the endowment oath,” by which he obligated himself to make his 
States "and^^ church paramount to his allegiance to the United 

2. That by reason of his official relation to the church, as one of its 
apostles, he is responsible for polygamous cohabitation which yet con¬ 
tinues among the Mormons, notwithstanding it is prohibited by law. 

oath,” it is sufficient in this summary to say 
that the testimony is collated and analyzed in the annexed statement 
and thereby shown to be limited in amount, vague and indefinite in 
chaiacter, and utterly unreliable, because of the disreputable and 
untrustworthy character of the witnesses. 

Theie were but seven witnesses who made any pretense of testifvino* 
about any such obligation. One of these was sho^wn by the teSnf 
of two uncontradicted witnesses to be mentally unsound Another to 
have committed perjury m the testimony given before the committee 
on another point. The third was shown by the uncontradicted testi- 
number of witnesses to have a bad reputation for truth and 

had been for vlrt ""reliable. A fourth admitted that he 

had been toi 3 eais intemperate, and was shown by indisputable testi 
mony to have lost his position on that account, and thei-e^on and for 









IN RE REED SMOOT. 


3 


that reason to have withdrawn from the church and to have assumed 
such a hostile and revengeful attitude as to entirely discredit him as a 
reliable witness. The other three witnesses were so indefinite as to 
their statements that their testimony amounted at most to nothing 
more than an attempt to state an imperfect and confessedly uncertain 
recollection. 

All that it is attempted to show as to the character of this oath is 
positivel}" contradicted by Reed Smoot and a great number of wit¬ 
nesses, whose standing and character and whose reputation for truth 
and veracity are unquestioned, except only in so far as their credibil¬ 
ity may be affected by the fact that they are or have been members of 
the Mormon Church. 

Upon this state of evidence we are of opinion that no ground has 
; been established on which to predicate a ffnding or belief that Mr. 

I Smoot ever took any obligation involving hostility to the United 
States, or requiring him to regard his allegiance to the Mormon 
I Church as paramount to his allegiance and duty to the United States. 


V. 

The only remaining question is whether or not by virtue of his offi¬ 
cial relation to the church as one of its apostles he has any responsi- 
i bility for the continuation of polygamous cohabitation by members of 
j that church. 

I The testimony on this point is also carefully collated and analyzed 
in the annexed statement. 

It will be found by an examination of that testimony that he has 
never at any time, and particularly he has not since the manifesto of 
I 1890, countenanced or encouraged plural marriages; but that on the con- 
i trary he has uniformly upheld the policy of the church, as announced 
I by that proclamation, by actively advocating and exerting his influence 
1 to eff'eet a complete discontinuance of such marriages, and that in the 
few instances established by the testimony" where plural marriages and 
polygamous cohabitation, as a result of them, have occurred since 
1890 they have been without any encouragement, countenance, or 
approval whatever on his part. 

As to polygamous cohabitation in consequence of plural marriages 
entered into before the manifesto of 1890, there is no testimony to 
show that he has ever done more than silently acquiesce in this off ense 
against law. In view of his important and influential position in the 
church, this acquiescence might be regarded as inexcusable if it were 
not for the peculiar circumstances attending the commission of this 
offense. 

To understand these circumstances it is necessary to recall some his¬ 
torical facts, among which are some that indicate that the United 
States Government is not free from responsibilit}^ for these violations 
of the law. Instead of discountenancing and prohibiting polygamy 
when it was first proclaimed and practiced the Congress remained 
silent and did nothing in that behalf. While Congress was thus at 
least manifesting indifference. President Fillmore and the Senate of 
the United States in September, 1850, gave both recognition and 
encouragement by the appointment and confirmation of Brigham 
Young, the then head of the church, and an open and avowed advocate 
and representative of polygamy, to be governor of the Territory of 






4 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


Utah. When his term of office expired under this appointment he 
was reappointed by President Pierce and again confirmed by the 
Senate. . 

There was no legislation or action of any kind by Congress on this 
subject until the act of Jul}" 1, 1862, which was in language, as well 
as legal effect, nothing more than a prohibition of bigamy in the Ter¬ 
ritories and other places over which the United States had jurisdiction. 

After this act, for a period of twenty j^ears, plural marriages and 
polygamous cohabitation continued in the Territory of Utah practi¬ 
cally unrestrained and without any serious effort on the part of the 
United States to restrict the same. 

Finall}^, in response to an aroused public sentiment, Congress passed ^ 
the act of March 22, 1882, by which it prohibited both plural mar¬ 
riages and polj^gamous cohabitation, but legitimized the children of all 
such marriages born prior to the first day of Januar}^ 1883. Under 
this act prosecutions were inaugurated to enforce its provisions, but it 
was soon demonstrated that public sentiment was such that only par¬ 
tial and veiy unsatisfactorj^ success could be secured. 

Then followed what is known as the Edmunds-Tucker Act of March 
3,1887, by which, among other things, the rules of evidence were so 
changed as to make it less difficult to secure evidence in prosecutions 
for polygamy and pol 3 "gamous cohabitation. Again, by the terms of 
this act, all the children born within twelve months after its passage 
were legitimized. 

This statute was upheld b}" the Supreme Court of the United States, 
and efforts to prosecute such offenses were redoubled with such suc¬ 
cess that on the 26th da}^ of September, 1890, the then president of the 
church, Wilford Woodruff, issued what is known as the manifesto of 
1890, forbidding further plural marriages. So far as the testimon}^ 
discloses there have been but few plural marriages since, perhaps not 
more than the bigamous marriages during the same period among the 
same number of non-Mormons. 

The evidence shows that there were at this time about 2,400 pol 3 ^ga- 
mous families in the Territoiy of Utah. This number was reduced to 
500 and some odd families in 1905. A few of these families may have 
removed out of the State of Utah, but so far as the testimony discloses 
the great reduction in number has been on account of the deaths of 
the heads of these families. It will be onl 3 ^ a few 3 ^ears at most until 
all will have passed away. This feature of the situation has had a 
controlling influence upon public sentiment in the State of Utah with 
respect to the prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation since the 
manifesto of 1890. 

Whether right or wrong, when plural marriages were stopped and 
the offense of polygamy was confined to the cohabitation of those who 
had contracted marriages before 1890, and particularly those who had 
contracted marriages before the statutes of 1887 and 1882, the disin¬ 
clination to prosecute for these offenses became so strong, even among 
the non-Mormons, that such prosecutions were finally practically 
abandoned. 

It was not alone the fact that if no fu^rther plural marriages were to 
oe contracted polygamy would necessarily in the course of time die 
out and pass away, but also the fact that Congress, having by the 
Statutes of 1882 and 1887 specifically legitimized the children of these 
polygamous marriages, it was inconsistent, if not unwise and impossi- 





IN RE REED SMOOT. 


5 


ble, in the opinion of even the non-Mormons, to prohibit the father of 
such children from livino- with, supporting, educating, and caring for 
them; but if the father was thus to live with, support, educate, and 
care for the children, it seemed harsh and unreasonable to exclude 
from this relationship the mothers of the children. 

Such are some of the reasons assigned for the lack of a public senti¬ 
ment to uphold successful prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation 
after 1890. It is unnecessary to recite others, for it is enough to say 
that whatever the real reason or explanation may be, the fact was that 
after 1890 it became practically impossible to enforce the law against 
these offenses, except in ffagrant cases. 

Such was the situation when the Territory applied for admission to 
the Union and Congress passed the enabling act of July 16,1894, by 
which the people of Utah, in order to entitle them to admission into 
the Union, on terms prescribed b}^ Congress, were required to incor¬ 
porate in their constitution a proviso that ‘■‘polygamous or plural 
marriages are forever prohibited;” not polygamous cohabitation, it 
will be observed, but only polygamous marriages. The testimony 
shows that there was a common understanding both in Congress and 
Utah that there were not only to be no more plural marriages, but 
that prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation had become so difficult 
that there was a practical suspension of them, and that time was the 
only certain solution of the perplexing problem. 

This sentiment has not only ever since continued, but with the con¬ 
stant diminution of the number of pol 3 "gamous families and the rapid 
approach of the time when all will have passed awa}^, there has come 
a natural strengthening of the sentiment. The testimony in this 
respect is set forth at length in the annexed statement, but we make 
the following quotations in order that it may appear in this summary 
that there is this common disposition, among non-Mormons as well as 
Mormons. 

Judge William McCarthy of the supreme court of Utah, a non- 
Mormon and an uncompromising opponent of polygam}^ who has held 
many important offices of trust, among others that of Assistant United 
States Attorney for Utah, and who, as such, was charged with the 
dut}" of prosecuting these offenses, testified as follows: 

I prosecuted them (offenses of polygamous cohabitation) before the United States 
Commissioners up until 1893, when the United States attorney refused to allow my 
accounts for services for that kind of work, and then I quit and confined my investi¬ 
gations before the grand jury in those cases. 

In explanation of his action he testified—we quote from the annexed 
statement: 

That he found the press was against the prosecutions; that the public prosecutor, 
whose attention he invited to the matter, refused to proceed. From this and other 
facts which came to his knowledge. Judge McCarthy reached the conclusion that 
the public sentiment was against interfering with men in their polygamous relations, 
who had married before the manifesto. 

E. B. Critchlow, a non-Mormon attorney at law of Salt Lake City, 
one of the principal managers of this proceeding against Mr. Smoot, 
who gave the case his personal attention, attending most of the meet¬ 
ings of committee, testified before the committee, again quoting from 
annexed statement: 

That after the manifesto of 1890 there was no inclination on the part of the prose¬ 
cuting officer to “push these matters as to present cohabitation,” “thinking it was a 




C) 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


matter that would immediately die out;” that it was well known that Apostle John 
Henry Smith was living in unlawful cohabitation; that non-Mormons generally made 
no objection to it; that they were disposed “to let things go,” and that that was the 
general feeling from the time of the manifesto in 1890 “down to very recent times 
pretty nearly up to date, or practically up to date.” 

Mr. Critchlow further testified that the non-Mormons were disposed 
to overlook the continuous polygamous cohabitation of those who had 
taken plural wiv^es before the manifesto, because they, the non-Mor¬ 
mons, felt satisfied that there would be no more plural marriages; that 
the thing would work itself out in the future, and that where the 
polygamists had their wives in separate houses and simply kept up the 
old relations without the offensive flaunting of them before the public, 
it had been practically passed over. 

Orlando W. Powers, esq., a leading lawyer of Utah, who was asso¬ 
ciate justice of the supreme court of the Territory, and who^ showed 
by his testimony much hostility to the Mormon Church, testified that 
there was this general feeling after the manifesto not to interfere 
with those whose marriages were prior thereto. He then added, 
“There is a question for statesmen to solve. We have not known 
what was best to do. It has been discussed and people would say that 
such and such a man ought to be prosecuted. ^ i 

“Then they Avould consider whether anything would be gained; : 
whether we would not delay instead of hastening the time that we j 
hope to live to see; whether the institution would not flourish by 
reason of what they would term persecution. And so, notwithstand¬ 
ing a protest has been sent down here to you, I will say to you, the 
people have acquiesced in the condition that exists.” ' 

He explained that by “ the people” he meant the Gentiles. 

The following quotation from a speech by Senator Dubois, reported . 
in the Congressional Record of Februaiy 5, 1903, page 1729 et seq., 
is to the same general effect: 

Mr. Dubois. * * * Various causes operated to cause the Mormons to abandon 
polygamy. There was a feeling among the younger members of the Mormom Church, 
and a very strong feeling, that polygamy should be done away with. So here was 
this pressure within the church against polygamy and the pressure by the Govern¬ 
ment from outside the church against polygamy. In 1891, 1 think it was, the presi- - 
dent of the Mormon Church issued a manifesto declaring that thereafter there should 
be no polygamous marriages anywhere in the Mormon Church. The Mormons were 
then called together in one of their great conferences, where they meet by the thou¬ 
sands. This manifesto was issued to them by the first presidency, M'hich is their 
authority; was submitted to them, and all the Mormon people ratified and agreed to 
this manfesto, doing away with polygamy thereafter. 

The Senator from Maine (Mr. Hale) will recall that I came here as a Senator from 
Idaho shortly after that, and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Platt) will recall 
how bitter and almost intemperate I was in my language before his committee and on 
the floor of the other House in the denunciation of these practices of the Mormon 
Church. But after that manifesto was issued, in common with all of the Gentiles of 
that section who had made this fight, we said: “They have admitted the right of 
our contention and say now, like children who have been unruly, we will obey our 
parents and those who have a right to guide us; we will do those things no more.” 
Therefore we could not maintain our position and continue punishing them unless it 
was afterwards demonstrated that they would not comply with their promise. 

After a few years in Idaho, where the fight was the hottest and the thickest, we 
Muped all of those laws from our statute books which aimed directly at the Mormon 
people, and to-day the laws on the statute books of Idaho against polygamy and 
kindred crimes are less stringent than in almost any other State in the Union. I 
live among those people; and, so far as I know, in Idaho there has not been a polyg- . 
amous marriage celebrated since that manifesto was issued, and I have yet to find a 
man in Idaho or anywhere else who will say that a polygamous marriage has been 
celebrated anywhere since the issuance of that manifesto. 





IN RE REED SMOOT. 7 

Mr. Hale. Then, it must follow from that, as the year^igX)>s^ as the older 
people disappear, polygamy as a practice will be practicaj^Kjru^fec^ 

Mr. Dubois. There is no question about it; and I will say. V* Senator, owing to 
the active part which we took in that tierce contest in Idand, I wfm^ others who had 
made that fight thought we were justified in making this promise to the Mormon 
people- , , . . the clod 

\\ e had no authority of law, but we took it upon ourselves to assure them that 
; those older men who were living in the polygamous relation, who had growing 
! families which they had reared and were rearing before the manifesto was issued, 

I and at a time when they thought they had a right under the Constitution to enter 
f into polygamous relations—that those older men and women and their children 
r should not be disturbed; that the polygamous man should be allowed to support 
i his numerous wives and their children. 

' The polygamous relations, of course, should not continue, but we would not com- 
. pel a man to turn his families adrift. We promised that the older ones, who had 
contracted those relations before the manifesto was issued, would not be persecuted 
by the Gentiles; that time would be given for them to pass away, but that the law 
would be strenuously enforced against any polygamous marriage which might be 
contracted in the future. 

Much more testimony might be quoted of the same general charac¬ 
ter. It is sufficient, however, for the purpose of this summary to say 
that there is practically no testimony in conflict with that which has 
been quoted. 

In other words, the conditions existing in Utah since Reed Smoot 
became an official of the iMormon Church in 1900 have been such that 
non-Mormons and Mormons alike have acquiesced in polygamous 
cohabitation on the part of those wffio married before the manifesto of 
1890, ns an evil that could best be gotten rid of by simply tolerating 
it until in the natural course of events it shall have passed out of exist¬ 
ence. 

With this disposition pi’evailing everywhere in the State of Utah 
among all classes—the Gentile or non-Mormon population as well as 
I among the Mormons—the undersigned are of the opinion that there is 
no just ground for expelling Senator Smoot or for finding him disquali¬ 
fied to hold the seat he occupies because of the fact that he, in common 
with all the people of his State, has not made war upon, hut has acqui¬ 
esced in, a condition for which he had no original responsibility. In 
doing so he has only conformed to what non-Mormons, hostile to his 
church, as well as Mormons, have concluded is, under all the circum- 
■ stances, not only the wisest course to pursue, l3ut probably the only 
course that promises etiective and satisfactory^ results. 

J. B. Foraker. 

Albert J. Beveridge. 
Wm. P. Dillingham. 

I A. J. Hopkins. 

P. C. Knox. 





:;':,;,:;-^n.STATEMENT. 

“ iflO i : 

ii-i> naoTow i _ _ 

" i>E: 

The minority respectfully submit the following statement as a part 
of their foregoing report. 

January 27, 1903, the Senate adopted the following Senate Resolu¬ 
tion No. 205: 

Resolved^ That the Committee on Privileges.and Elections of the Senate, or any 
subcommittee thereof, be authorized and directed to investigate the right and title 
of Eeed Smoot to a seat in the Senate as Senator from the State of Utah, and said 
committee, or any subcommittee thereof, is authorized to sit during the sessions of 
the Senate, to employ a stenographer, to send for persons and papers, and to admin¬ 
ister oaths; and that the expense of the inquiry shall be paid from the contingent 
fund of the Senate upon vouchers to be approved by the chairman of the committee. 

At the time of the adoption of this resolution there were pending- 
in the Senate two formal protests against the admission of Reed 
Smoot to the Senate, both having been filed before he took his seat. 
One of these protests is signed by W. M. Paden and 17 others, and the 
other by John L. Leilich alone—Mr. Leilich being also one of the 
17 who signed the principal protest. 

Shortly before the adoption of the foregoing resolution at a pre- 
liminar}^ hearing on the 16th day of January, 1903, of which notice 
was duly given, counsel appeared before the committee representing 
Mr. Paden and others who signed the principal protest, and Mr. Smoot 
also appeared in person and by counsel. At that time statements were 
made by counsel for the respective parties, stating in a general way 
what they expected to prove and what their claims were as to the legal 
aspects of the case. Later the taking of testimony commenced. 

Numerous witnesses were produced and examined before the com¬ 
mittee, both on behalf of the protestants and on behalf of Mr. Smoot. 
The taking of this evidence was continued from time to time until the 
25th day of January, 1905, when the further taking of testimony was 
closed and counsel were heard in argument. The committee took the 
case under consideration with a view to making a report. Afterwards, 
at the present session the case was reopened for the further taking of 
testimony, after which the case was again argued by counsel. 

In the protest signed b}" Mr. Leilich alone it was charged that Reed 
Smoot is a polygamist, and that, as an apostle of the Church of Jesus 
Christ of Latter Day Saints—commonly called the Mormon Church— 
he had taken an oath “of such a nature and character as that he is 
thereby disqualified from taking the oath of office required of a United 
States Senator.” No one appeared, however, to sustain either of these 
charges. No evidence has been offered in support of either of them, 
but on the contrary both charges were refuted by a number of 
witnesses. 

The investigation made by the committee has been based chiefly 
upon the charges made in the protest signed by Mr. Paden and others. 

8 








IN RE REED SMOOT. 


9 


At the preliminary hearing already referred to counsel for the protest- 
ants presented, in a more formal way than had been done in the protest 
itself, the charges supposed to be embodied in that protest. 

The charges thus presented are as follows: 

First. The Mormon priesthood, according to the doctrine of that 
church and the belief and practice of its membership, is vested with, 
and assumes to exercise, supreme authority in all things temporal and 
spiritual, civil and political. The head of the church claims to receive 
divine revelations, and these Reed Smoot, by his covenants and obliga¬ 
tions, is bound to accept and obey, whether they alfect things spiritual 
or things temporal. 

Second. The first presidency and twelve apostles, of whom Reed 
Smoot is one, are supreme in the exercise of this authority of the 
church and in the transmission of that authority to their successors. 
Each of them is called prophet, seer, and revelator. 

Third. As shown by their teaching and by their own lives, this body 
of nien has not abandoned belief in polygamy and polygamous cohabi¬ 
tation. On the contrary— 

(a) As the ruling authorities of the church they promulgate in the 
most solemn manner the doctrine of polj^gamy without reservation. 

(h) The president of the Mormon Church and a majority of the 
twelve apostles now practice polygamy and polygamous cohabitation, 
and some of them have taken polygamous wives since the manifesto of 
1890. These things have been done with the knowledge and counte¬ 
nance of Reed Smoot. Plural-marriage ceremonies have been per¬ 
formed by apostles since the manifesto of 1890, and many bishops and 
other high officials of the church have taken plural wives since that 
time. All of the first presidency and twelve apostles encourage, coun¬ 
tenance, conceal, and connive at polj^gamy and polygamous cohabita¬ 
tion, and honor and reward by high office and distinguished prefer¬ 
ment those who most persistently and defiantly violate the law of the 
land. 

Fourth. Though pledged by the compact and bound by the law of 
their Commonwealth, this supreme body, whose voice is law to its 
people and whose members were individually directly responsible for 
good faith to the American people, permitted, without protest or 
objection, their legislators to pass a law nullifying the statute against 
polygamous cohabitation. 

In substance these charges so far as they seem to be a proper sub¬ 
ject of inquiry here are: 

1. That the Mormon Church exacts and receives from its members, 
including Reed Smoot, absolute obedience in all political matters. 

2. That the Mormon Church is promulgating the doctrine of polyg¬ 
amy, and that the first presidency and all the twelve apostles, includ¬ 
ing Reed Smoot, “encourage, countenance, conceal, and connive at 
pol 3 ^gamy and polygamous cohabitation, and reward those who prac¬ 
tice it.” 

No evidence has been submitted to the committee or has come to its 
knowledge in anywise affecting injuriously the general character of 
Reed Smoot. On the contrary, it has been admitted by the protes- 
tants, through their counsel, and a number of witnesses on both sides 
have testified, that his moral character is unimpeachable in every 
respect. In the protest of Mr. Paden and others it is explicitly stated 
that they do not charge him with any offense cognizable by law. 



10 


IN EE EEED SMOOT. 


SOME HT8TOK1CAL FACTS. 

To a proper understanding of the voluminous evidence in the case, 
in so far as it tends to throw any light upon the question whether Keed 
Smoot is entitled to retain his seat in the Senate, it will be useful to 
set forth, in a preliminar}^ certain indisputable historical tacts. ^ 

The Mormon people, under the lead of Brigham Young, in their 
pilsfi’image from Nauvoo, Ill., settled at the place now known as Salt 
Lake City in the summer of 1847. The place where they located was, 
at that time, Mexican territory. The Mormons, however, hoisted the- 
Stars and Stripes on an eminence near the cittq ever since called j 

Ensign Peak. ^ ^ i i i i I 

On the 20th day of September, 1850, Brigham Young, the then head 1 
of the Mormon C5hurch, was nominated for governor of the Territory I 
of Utah by President Fillmore, and his appointment was continued by 
the Senate September 28, 1850. During his term of office under that 
appointment, and in the year 1852, Brigham Young, as the president 
of the Mormon Church, formally and publicly proclaimed polygamy ^ 
as a doctrine of that church. ' 

There is some dispute as to whether polygamy had not been pro¬ 
claimed in 1844 by Joseph Smith, jr., Brigham Young’s predecessor i 
as president of the church; but it is not deemed necessary in this state- 
ment to consider the merits of that controversy^ The admitted fact is \ 
that from the time of Brigham Young’s announcement in 1852 polyg¬ 
amy was openly practiced in Utah by many of the Mormon people, ^ 
including Brigham Young himself. 

When his term of office as governor of the Territory expired in ' 
1854 he was appointed for another term of four years by President 
Pierce, his nomination being again confirmed by the Senate; he served 
out his second full term of four years. During all of this time he 
continued to be president of the church and to openW live in pol 3 ^ga- 
rnous relations with several wives. 

ACT OF 1862. 

There seems to have been no attempt b}" the Government of the 
United States to interfere with the practice of polygamy^ in Utah until 
Jul}^ 1, 1862, on which date an act of Congress entitled “An act to 
punish and prevent the practice of polj^gani}^ in the Territories of the 
United States and other places, and disapproving and annulling certain 
acts of the legislative assembly of the Territory of Utah,” became a 
layv (12 Stat. L., 501). 

The first section of that act is as follows: 

That every person having a husband or wife living, who shall marry any other 
person, whether married or single, in a Territory of the United States, or other 
place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, shall, except in the 
cases specified in the proviso to this section, be adjudged guilty of bigamy, and, upon 
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, and 
by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years: Provided, nevertheless, That 
this section shall not extend to any person by reason of any former marriage whose 
husband or wife by such marriage shall have been absent for five successive years 
wdthout being known to such person within that time to be living; nor to any per¬ 
son by reason of any former marriage which shall have been dissolved by the decree 
of a competent court; nor to any person by reason of any former marriage which 
shall have been annulled or pronounced void by the sentence or decree of a compe¬ 
tent court on the ground of the nullity of the marriage contract. 




IN RE REED SMOOT. 


11 


It will be observed that while this section of the act of 18G2 made it 
a penal offense to take a plural wife or husband it did not punish or in 
an 3 wvise interfere with the continued cohabitation of those who had 
I previously entered into the polyg’amous relation. 

THE EDMUNDS LAW. 

Such cohabitation was not made an offense until March 22, 1882, 
when the so-called ‘‘ Edmunds Act” became a law (22 Stat. at Large, 
30). This act of 1882 amended the act of July 1, 1862 (which in the 
meantime had become section 5352 of the Revised Statutes). Section 
3 of the amendatoiy act provided: 

Sec. 3. That if any male person, in a Territory or other place over which the United 
States have exclusive jurisdiction, hereafter cohabits with more than one woman, he 
; shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be pun¬ 
ished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not 
more than six months, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. 

In the seventh section of the same act it w^as provided as follows: 

Sec. 7. That the issue of bigamous or polyganious marriages, known as Mormon 
marriages, in cases in which such marriages have been solemnized according to the 
ceremonies of the Mormon sect, in any Territory of the United States, and such issue 
shall have been born before the first day of January, anno Domini eighteen hundred 
and eighty-three, are hereby legitimated. 

Soon after the Edmunds Act became a law, prosecutions were insti¬ 
tuted in the Territorial courts against persons who were living in 
poly gating those prosecutions being nearly^ all under the third section 
of the act, wdiich made it an offense for a man to cohabit with more 
than one woman. From that time until October, 1890, the number 
of polvgamous marriages in Utah decreased, but the practice was not 
entirelv stopped. 


THE EDMUNDS-TUCKER ACT. 

I By what is called the Edmunds-Tucker Act, approved March 3, 1887 
j (24 Stat. L., 635), the rules of evidence were changed so as to make a 
lawful husband or wife of a person accused of bigamy, polygamy, or 
unlaw'ful cohabitation a competent witness. 

By section 7 of that act the various acts of the legislative assembly 
of the Territory of Utah incorporating or continuing the corporation 
known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints were dis¬ 
approved and annulled, and that corporation dissolved; and it was 
further made the duty of the Attorney-General of the United States 
to take proper proceedings in the supreme court of the^ Territoiy to 
wind up the affairs of the corporation. Section 11 of this act of 1887 
further provided as follows: 

Sec. 11. That the laws enacted by the legislative assembly of the Territory of 
Utah which provide for or recognize the capacity of illegitimate children to inherit 
or to be entitled to any distributive share in the estate of the father of any such 
illegitimate child are hereby disapproved and annulled; and no illegitimate child 
shall hereafter be entitled to inherit from his or her father or to receive any distribu¬ 
tive share in the estate of his or her father: Provided, That this section shall not 
apply to any illegitimate child born within twelve months after the passage of this 
act, nor to anv child made legitimate by the seventh section of the act entitled “An 
act to amend" section fifty-three hundred and fifty-two of the Revised Statutes of 
the.United States, in reference to bigamy, and for other purposes,” approved March 
twenty-second, eighteen hundred and eighty-two. 




12 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


REYNOLDS Y. THE UNITED STATES. 

Although the act of 1862, above referred to, made it a criminal 
offense to marry a plural wife in the Territories of the Lnited States, 
and although polygamy was openly and publicly practiced, there seems 
to have been little effort on the part of the Goveniment to suppress it 
in Utah for many years after that time. Finally, however, one 
George Re 3 uiolds was indicted and charged with bigamy under that 
act, and his case was taken to the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

The principal question involved was whether, since polygani}^ was a 
duty under the religious doctrines of the Mormon Church, an act of 
Congress punishing the taking of a plural wife was an unconstitutional 
interference with religion. That case was decided at the October 
term, 1878 (Reynolds v. United States, 97 U. S., 115). The court held 
that while it was not competent for Congress to make a mere belief a 
punishable offense, 3 "et it was entirely competent for it to make crim¬ 
inal an act which the person committing it might consider to be a duty 
under his religious belief. 

It is worthy of note that the belief of the Mormons in the uncon¬ 
stitution alit 3 ’' of the act in question was so strong that Reynolds, a 
member of the church, voluntarily enabled proof of his offense to be 
obtained in order that the constitutionalit 3 " of the act might be tested. 

THE MANIFESTO OF 1890. 

On the 26th of September, 1890, Wilford Woodruff, then president 
of the Mormon Church, issued what is called “The Manifesto,” of 
which the following is a cop 3 ': 

OFFICIAL DECLARATION. 

To whom it may concern: 

Press dispatches having been sent for political purposes from Salt Lake City, which 
have been widely published, to the effect that the Utah Commission, in their recent 
report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being 
solemnized, and that forty or more such marriages have been contracted in Utah 
since last June or during the past year; also that in public discourses the leaders of 
the church have taught, encouraged, and urged the continuance of the practice of 
polygamy. 

I, therefore, as president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, do 
hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are 
not teaching polygamy, or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into 
its practice, and I deny that either 40 or any other number of plural marriages have, 
during that period, been solemnized in our temples or in any other place in the 
Territory. 

One case has been reported in which the parties alleged that the marriage was per¬ 
formed in the Endowment House, in Salt Lake City, in the spring of 1889, but I have 
not been able to learn who performed the ceremony; whatever was done in this mat¬ 
ter was without my knowledge. In consequence of this alleged occurrence the 
Endowment House was, by my instructions, taken down without delay. 

Inasmuch as laws have been enacted by Congress forbidding plural marriages, 
which laws have been pronounced constitutional by the court of last resort, I hereby 
declare my intention to submit to those laws and to use ni}^ influence with the mem¬ 
bers of the church over which I preside to have them do likewise. 

There is nothing in my teachings to the church or in those of my associates dur¬ 
ing the time specified which can be reasonably construed to inculcate or encourage 
polygamy, and when any elder of the church has used language which appeared to 
convey any such teachings he has been promptly reproved. And I now publicly 



IN RE REED SMOOT. 13 

declare that my advice to the Latter-Day Saints is to refrain from contracting any 
marriage forbidden by the law of the land. 

WILFORD Woodruff, 

President of the Church of Jesus CJn-ist of Latter-Day Saints. 

At tlie semiannual general conference of the members of the Mor¬ 
mon Church, which was held on C)ctober 6, 1890, the foregoing 
declaration was unanimously accepted ‘‘as authoritative and binding.” 
Two years later it was again approved by the general conference of 
the church. Since it was first approved by the general conference, in 
October, 1890, it has been and still remains a part of the fundamental 
law of the Mormon Church, which can be repealed or modified only 
by the action of a similar conference. 

As to the effect of the manifesto on the power of the president of 
the Mormon church, or any subordinate official, to celebrate a plural 
marriage we quote a part of the testimony of James E. Talmage. 
Doctor Talmage prepared and issued, under the auspices of the church 
authorities, a work called “Articles of Faith,” which authoritatively 
sets forth the doctrines of the church, having been submitted to, 
approved by, and published bv the church itself. (Vol. Ill, pp. 47 and 
48.) 

Mr, Worthington. Doctor, you have used the expression here “holding the 
keys” in connection with that revelation involving polygamy, when it was given to 
Joseph Smith, jr., that he was the only man who held the keys to that power. He 
only at that time, or some person delegated by him, could make a plural marriage 
that would be valid according to the laws of the church. Am I right in that? 

Mr. Talmage. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. From that time on down to the time that President Woodruff 
issued this manifesto, which the church approved in conference assembled, the same 
principle obtained? 

Mr. Talmage. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. That a plural marriage could not be valid according to the law 
of the church, only hen celebrated by the president, or by somebody authorized 
by him to celebrate it. Is that right? 

Mr. Talmage. That is strictly true. 

Mr. Worthington. Then when this revelation which is called the manifesto came 
and it was submitted to the people and accepted by them, that power was taken 
away from the president, was it not? 

Mr. Talmage. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Worthington. So that since the 6th of October, 1890, the president of the 
church had no power to solemnize a plural marriage according to the law' of the 
church, even? 

Mr. Talmage. That is true. 

Mr. Worthington. And no power to authorize anybody else to celebrate one? 

Mr. Talmage. That is true. 

Mr. Worthington. So that if any person has undertaken to enter into plural 
marriage, if any w'oman has become the plural wife of a husband since the 6th day 
of October, 1890, she is no more a wife by the law' of the church than she is by the 
law of the land? 

Mr. Talmage. That is true. 

Mr. Worthington. And it is not in the pow'er of the president to revive the old 
system so that he can make a valid plural marriage or authorize one, unless he does 
it through the general conference of the church? 

Mr. Talmage. Certainly. It is now' a rule of the church that that power shall not 
be exercised. The power is there, but the exercise of it is entirely stopped, and a 
rule of the church thus made and sanctioned is equally binding w'ith the law' founded 
upon revelation, and the president therefore has in one sense, half voluntarily, 
inasmuch as he was the-chief individual to bring it before the conference, but by the 
action of the conference, properly speaking, has surrendered that power as far as its 
exercise is concerned. 

Mr. Worthington. It takes the action of the people to restore it, does it not? 

Mr. Talmage. Most assuredly-. ' (3—48, 49.) 







14 


IN KE KEED SMOOT. 


THE ENABLING ACT. 

The enabling act, under which Utah in January, 1896, was tinally 
admitted into the Union, was passed by Congress on July 16, 1894 (28 
Stat. L., 107). By section 8 of that act it was required that the 
State convention, which was authorized to be called to organize the 
State government, should provide: 

By ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people ' 
of said States— i 

First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no 
inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of 
hisor her modeof religious worship: Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages 
are forever prohibited.” i 

It is very important to observe that while this act made it a condi¬ 
tion to the admission of the State that polygamous or plural marriages 
should not be allowed, no provision of any kind was made against ; 
pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation. That offense was left to be governed by the t\ 
constitution and laws of the State as the inhabitants of the State might 'j 
determine. 

The testimony shows that the distinction thus made by Congress in j 
the enabling act between polygamous marriages and polj^gamous j 
cohabitation was intentional. Polj^gamous marriages, as we have :l 
seen, were not forbidden b}^ any act of Congress until 1862, ten years 
after polygamy had become prevalent in Utah. It was twenty years 
later still, 1882, before Congress prohibited polygamous cohabitation. | j 

From the time polygamy was first promulgated b}^ Brigham Young, 
as president of the Mormon Church, until about five years thereafter, 
he was continued in office by the Government as governor of the Ter- ' 
ritory. Both the Edmunds Act of 1882 and the Edmunds-Tucker Act 
of 1887 recognized polygamous marriages to the extent of making 
legitimate all the children born of such marriages prior to the passage 
of those acts, respectively, who might be born within a period in one 
case of nine months and nine days and in the other twelve months after 
the passage of the act. 

POLYGAMOUS COHABITATION. j 

Under these laws families had been created, and children born of i 
polygamous marriages had grown to manhood and womanhood. It is j| 
not surprising, under such circumstances, that there was a feeling on | 
the part both of the Government officials in that Territory and of the 
people of the Territory that if further polygamous marriages should 
cease the continuance of polygamous relations theretofore created 
might be tolerated, if they were not openl}" or flauntingly carried on. 

To prohibit such relations would be to den}" the parents of legiti¬ 
mated children to dwell together with such children. Some twenty- 
five or thirty witnesses have been examined on this subject, most of 
them non-Mormons and several of them witnesses called on behalf of 
the protestants. There is a practical unanimity among them that at 
least from the time of the admission of the State into the Union, which 
occurred on January 4, 1896, there was practically a universal dis¬ 
inclination to prosecute those who had plural families born of relations 
established before the manifesto of 1890. 

As a sample of the evidence on this subject we refer to the testimony 
of Judge William M. McCarty, one of the associate justices of the 







IN KE EEED SMOOT. 


15 


supreme court of Utah. He was assistant United States attorney for 
the Territory of Utah from 1889 until 1902, when he was elected 
county attorney of Sevier County, in that Territory. He was reelected 
in 1894. In 1895 he was elected one of the district judges of the State 
of Utah. 

He was reelected to that office in 1900, and in 1902 was elected to 
his present office. He is a non-Mormon, and has always been an 
uncompromising opponent of polygam}^ He conducted some of the 
prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation between the date of the man¬ 
ifesto, in 1890, and the admission of the State into the Union in Jan¬ 
uary, 1896. He testified: 

I prosecuted them before the United States commissioners up until 1893, when 
the United States attorney refused to allow my accounts for services for that kind of 
work, and then I quit and confined my investigations before the grand jury in those 
cases. 

And Judge McCarty further testified that the superior to whom he 
referred as stopping the prosecution for polygamous cohabitation was 
John W. Judd, a Gentile. 

In 1897 some prosecutions for polygamous cohabitations against 
men who were married before the manifesto came before Judge 
McCarty as district judge of the State. The accused in those cases 
admitted their guilt and were punished by a fine only, upon agreeing 
to cease cohabitation with their plural wives. Judge McCarty testi¬ 
fied that it was after these prosecutions he obtained the first emphatic 
expression he had observed as to the state of public opinion in Utah at 
that time regarding such prosecutions. 

He said that he found the press was against the prosecutions; that 
the public prosecutor, whose attention he invited to the matter, refused 
to proceed. From this and other facts which came to his knowledge 
Judge McCarty reached the conclusion that the public sentiment of 
the State was against interfering with men in their polygamous rela¬ 
tions who had married before the manifesto. (Vol. 2, 882 to 886; 
889, 916.) 

E. B. Critchlow, a Gentile lawyer, of Salt Lake City, who prepared 
the principal protests in this case and who, during the early sittings 
of the committee, assisted Mr. Tayler, counsel for the protestants, in 
presenting their case, testified as a witness on behalf of the protestants 
that after the manifesto of 1890 there was no inclination on the part 
of the prosecuting officer to “push these matters as to present cohab¬ 
itation,” “thinking it was a matter that would immediately die out;” 
that it was well known that Apostle John Henry Smith was living in 
unlawful cohabitation; that non-Mormons generally made no objection 
to it; that they were disposed “to let things go,” and that that was 
the general feeling from the time of the manifesto in 1890 “down to 
very recent times—pretty nearly up to date or practically up to date.” 

Mr. Critchlow further testified that the non-Mormons were disposed 
to overlook the continuous polygamous cohabitation of those who had 
taken plural wives before the manifesto, because the}"—the non-Mor- 
mons—felt satisfied that there would be no more plural marriages; 
that the thing would work itself out in the future, and that where the 
polygamists had their wives in separate houses and simply kept up the 
old relations without the offensive flaunting of them before the public 
it had been practically passed over. (Vol. 1, 624, 625.) 



16 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


Another witness called on behalf of the protestants was Orlando W. 
Powers, a leading law^^er of Utah, a non-Morinon, who was associate 
justice of the supreme court of the Territoiy of Utah in 1885 and 1886, 
and whose testimou}^ in general shows his strong feeling against the 
Mormon Church, fie testified that, speaking for those who fought the 
church party in the da 3 ^s when it was a power, they had felt and still 
feel that if the church would stop new plural marriages, those who had 
contracted such marriages before the manifesto would not be inter¬ 
fered with. After stating that the people who lived in the East had 
no understanding of the situation in this regard in Utah, Judge Powers 
added: 

That condition exists. There is a question for statesmen to solve. We have not 
known what was best to do. It has been discussed, and people would say that such 
and such a man ought to be prosecuted. Then they would consider whether any¬ 
thing would be gained; whether w'e would not delay instead of hastening the time 
that we hope to live to see; whether the institution would not flourish by reason of 
what they would term persecutions. And so, notwithstanding a protest has been 
sent down here to you, I will say to you the people have acquiesced in the condition 
that exists. 

Then the witness added that by “The people” he meant the Gen¬ 
tiles. (Vol. 1, 884-885.) 

William J. McConnell, ex-governor of Idaho and ex-Senator of the 
United States from that State, when asked whether there was an}^ 
public sentiment in Idaho in reference to prosecutions for simpl}^ 
unlawful cohabitation, as distinguished from new polygamous mar¬ 
riages, replied: 

It was understood and agreed when we adopted our State constitution and were 
admitted to statehood, that these old Mormons who had plural families would be 
allowed to support their wives and children without molestation. It was agreed by all 
parties. Democrats and Republicans alike, that they should be allowed to drift along. 
We could, under the law, have prosecuted these people and perhaps have sent them 
to jail. We could doubtless have broken up these families, but we felt it better that 
these men should be allowed to support these old women and these children than to 
further persecute them (2; 522). 

This witness .was sharply cross-examined b}^ Mr. Tayler and by the 
chairman on this subject, with the result that he made his testimony 
more emphatic (2, 524, 526). 

On his redirect examination he further stated that he agreed to the 
foregoing testimony of Mr. Critchlow and Mr. Powers (2, 531, 532). 

F. II. Holzheimer, a leading lawyer of Idaho, who was practicing 
his profession in Utah until November, 1902, testified that the issuing 
of the manifesto of 1890 brought about a very peculiar state of affairs, 
and that the question of how to take care of the problem was one 
which confronted the people of Utah, and which the witness did not 
think they have really solved. 

He added: 

The concensus of opinion at that time was that those who had contracted marriages 
prior to the manifesto should be left alone. It was not, however, believed that they 
should openly violate the law and unlawfully cohabit with their numerous wives. 
I will say this, that where that has occurred it has been mostly in isolated cases. 
There have been a number of cases where children have been born, but in no case 
that I know of has it been done openly. It is true it is against the law, but it has 
not been done in such an open, lewd manner as has been intimated nor has it been 
general. And because of the peculiar state of affairs it was the opinion that the 
whole thing would die out; that it was only a matter of a short time when the ques¬ 
tion would be entirely settled, because there would be no new marriages (2; 575-576). 


.1 


IX RE REED SMOOT. 17 

I^rank Martin, a lawyer of Idaho, testified that he believed those 
who were living in polygamous cohabitation in his State ought to be 
punished. But he added: 

people seem to think that the best way, as far as concerns those 
old tellows who contracted these relations before the manifesto, as long as they stop 
it and do not take any new wives, or as long as no new wives are taken, is to let it 
go, to let it gradually die out, to let the old ones die (2; 622). 

^ James II. Brady, a Gentile of Idaho, who operates several irriga¬ 
tion canals in that State and owns a power plant at the American Falls, 
when asked what is the sentiment in Idaho regarding disturbing or 
leaviiig undisturbed the men who went into polygamy prior to the 
manifesto of 1890, answered: 

To be absolutely frank in the matter, my judgment is that a majority of the men 
in Idaho would favor leaving those old men to live out their lives just as they have 
started in (2; 649). 

J. VV. N. Whitecotton, a lawyer who resides at Provo City, where 
Senator Smoot lives, and who is intimately acquainted in most of the 
Mormon counties in Uah, was asked what has been the sentiment 
among non-Mormons in Utah in regard to the men who had entered 
into poUgamy prior to the manifesto of 1890, and answered: 

Well, that is a pretty hard ciuestion to answer. The Gentiles in Utah have recog¬ 
nized that we have a very hard problem to deal with in that respect. It offers many 
embarrassing things. There has been a good deal said in this testimony—I have 
read it—about an understanding. I know nothing of any understanding in regard 
to that. But I do know this, that the people generally feel like they do not want to 
stir up this thing and set it to smelling any more. It has not a good odor. 

And there is another thing that they have taken into account in the neighborhood 
where I am, at least. When we get out to punish this man who is living in polyg¬ 
amy, put him in prison, they take into account somewhat the consequences that will 
come to his family. Now, the women who went into polygamy in Utah went into 
it because, although I think under a delusion, they thought it was a religious duty, 
and they are bound by the obligation. They feel that way. 

And imder the rules of the church, as I understand them, a plural wife, if she is 
divorced from her husband, may not become the wife of another man, and those 
plural wives who have children are in a very precarious condition if they are to be 
entirely separated from the only protector they have. I think that the condition of 
these women and the children they have has probably entered as largely into the 
feeling of “ let the matter slide along and not bother it ’’ as any other factor. 

On his further examination on this subject, the following occurred: 

The Chairmax. What is the sentiment in regard to those who contracted plural 
marriages before 1890 and are now living with their wives and having new children 
by them up to this time? 

Mr. Whitecotton. The sentiment is that it is an awful condition. 

The Chairman. That is a lawful condition? 

Mr. AVhitecotton. That is an awful condition. 

The Chairman. Oh! 

Mr. Whitecotton. Leave off the “1.” And we wish we were out of it. We do 
not know how to get out of it. 

The Chairman. What is the sentiment with respect to that class of people- 
approval or disapproval? 

Mr. Whitecotton. They have the disapproval of the people generally, but that 
does not go to the extent of causing a man to shoulder the responsibility of setting 
the law in motion against that man. 

The Chair.man. So that that class of men are left without interference? 

Mr. Whitecotton. They are left practically without interference. They have our 
regrets, but we do not know how to get at them. 

Senator Foraker. N'ou have said that that is largely because of the regard the peo¬ 
ple have for the condition in which the plural wives and children would be left in 
case of a successful prosecution. 

S. Kep. 4253, pt 2, 59-1-2 





/ 


18 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


Mr Whitecotton. Yes, sir. I think that (regard for plural wives and chil¬ 
dren) is the chief cause of withholding the hand of prosecution. Those women are 
human, and so are their children, and they are not much to blame, either, especially 
the children (2; 679-680). 

Hiram E. Booth, a practicing' law 3 "er of Salt Lake Cit}^ and one of 
the leading managers in the State of the Republican party, upon being 
asked to explain why it is that, if the people of Utah, including a laige 
part of the IMormon people, are so opposed to polygamy, tliose who 
are liv^ing in polygamous relations are not interfered with, said. 

AVell, my explanation of that is that the principal fight of the Gentiles has been 
to do away with polygamous marriages. While during many years there were numer¬ 
ous prosecutions for unlawful cohabitation, it was not for the purpose of punishment 
so much, those people who lived in unlawful cohabitation, as it was to bring about 
a cessation of polygamous marriages. That was the principle for which we strove, 
to stop people from marrying in polygamy. This was finally brought about in 1890 
by the manifesto of the president of the church, which was aflirmed, or sustained, as 
they call it, by the conference on October 6, 1890, and again in 1891. W e did not 

accept that in good faith at that time. t i 

That is, we were somewhat skeptical about it; but later we did. ISow, there has 
been since that time a disinclination to prosecute men and women who live in 
unlawful cohabitation. One of my own reasons—the way I look at it—was this: . 
INly sympathy was with the plural wife and her children. By these prosecutions 
she suffered more really than the husband did. In nearly all of the cases 1 may 
say the plural wife is a pure-minded woman, a woman who believed that it was right 
according to the law of God for her to accept that relation, and that she can not be 
released from her obligations when they are once entered upon ^ , 

Mr. Booth. I should say, with Judge Powers and ^Ir. Critchlow, that the general 
sentiment among the Gentile people in Utah is a disinclination to prosecute those 

CHS0S 

Mr AVorthington. If I understand you, when Senator Smoot was a candidate for 
Senator, and when he became an apostle, which was in April, 1900, things had set¬ 
tled down in Utah by the general acquiescence of the people that if there wmuld be 
no neiv polygamous marriages the people who had entered into that relation before 
the manifesto should not be disturbed? 

Mr. Booth. Should not be disturbed; no, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. And that was the state of opinion there when he li^came an 

^^Mrl^BooTH. That w^as the state of opinion when he became an apostle. 

Mr. Worthington. And if he had gone against that state of opinion he would have 
been going against the public sentiment of the State, would he not? 

Mr. Booth. Yes. 

Mr. AVorthington. Gentiles and Mormons? 

Mr. B®oth. Gentiles and Mormons. 1 would say in that respect that where 
polygamous relations w'ere carried on in such a w'ay as to outrage public sentiment, 
in those cases, of course, a prosecution w'ould have been demanded (2; 714, 715, 723). 

Arthur Pratt, who was deput}^ United States marshal in Utah from 
1874 until 1882, and again from 1886 to 1890, and who probably 
arrested- more Mormons charged with polygamy or polygamous 
cohabitation than any other man, said that he had heard Mr. White- 
cotton and Mr. Booth testify on this subject, and that he agreed with 
them, for the reasons stated by them—not out of any pity or sympathy 
for the men, but out of sympatliy and out of the sutfering that would 
be entailed on the women and the childi'en (2; 744). 

E. D. R. Thompson, a non-Mormon, who has lived in Salt Lake 
City since 1889, never been a Mormon, and who has taken a leading 
part in Republican politics in that State, testified: 

Well, the general idea has been that this condition of things would gradually die 
away by the lapse of time. It has been generally repugnant to most people who 
take any position as against the Mormons in this matter which would imply either 
proseculion or persecution. In other words, thev did not care to be informers 
(2,991). 






IN' EE EEED SMOOT. 


19 


(yharles De Moisy (a non-Mormon), who is a commissioner of the 
State bureau of statistics of Utah, and has never been’a Mormon, says, 
in regard to the sentiment among Gentiles in Utah as to the punish¬ 
ment of those who live in polygamous cohabitation where the mar¬ 
riages were celebrated before the manifesto, ‘‘ I think there is a matter 
of indiderence about it”—that he himself thinks—“the less said about 
those things the better” (2; 1003). 

Glen Miller, a non-Mormon, who was United States marshal in the 
Territory of Utah for four and a half years, and had been a member 
of the State senate for two years after Utah had been admitted into 
the Union, when asked what is the sentiment of Gentiles in Utah in 
regard to prosecutions for polygamous cohabitation between persons 
who were married before the manifesto, answered: 

Well, there has been a sentiment against that, as there has been against any 
informing against any of the infractions of law generally. They have felt that it was 
only a question of time that the practice would die out through the death of those 
who practiced it and the removal of that generation (3; 160), 

John W. Hughes, who has never been a Mormon, and is the editor 
of a weekly paper in Salt Lake City, when asked the same question, 
replied: 

Well, the sentiment has been right along that these old fellows that are in 
polygamy—to let them alone and they will soon die out. Very soon none of them 
will be left. The great point with the Gentiles is that there will be no new plural 
marriages (3; 163). 

Mrs. Mary G. Coulter, a non-Mormon, whose husband is a physi¬ 
cian in Ogden, testified: 

Those of us who have witnessed the old-time antagonisms and who are living and 
working for the new growth and progress do not believe in inquisitorial methods. 
AVe believe that the work of education, the establishment of industries, the develop¬ 
ing of the mining regions, the building of railroads especially, and the influx of peo¬ 
ple, owing to the colonization schemes which are succeeding there, will in time 
eradicate all of the old and objectionable conditions (3; 170). 

POLYGAMY IN OTHER COUNTRIES—HOW DEALT' WITH. 

A situation analogous to that existing in Utah after polygamy had 
been forbidden by the law of the church, as well as by the law of the 
State, arises in countries where polygamy is lawful, when missionaries 
have converted polygamists to the Christian faith. The question then 
frequently arises whether polygamists shall be admitted to the church, 
and if so whether they shall be required to put away all of their fam¬ 
ilies except one. In the argument of the case, counsel for the respond¬ 
ent has referred to certain publications by various Christian churches, 
showing the proceedings that have taken place in some such cases and 
the results. The Presbyterian and Refoi-med Review, vol. 7, for 1896, 
contains an article on “The baptism of polygamists in non-Christian 
lands” from which the following extracts are taken: 

At the regular meeting of the synod of India, held in Ludhiana, November, 1894, 
among the most important questions which came before the synod was this: AVhether 
in the case of a Mohammedan or Hindoo with more than one wife, applying for 
baptism, he should in all cases, as a condition of baptism, be required to put away 
all his wives but one. After a very thorough discussion, lasting between two or 
three sessions of the synod, it was resolved, by a vote of 36 to 10, to request the gen¬ 
eral assembly, “ in view of the exceedingly difficult complications which often occur 
in the cases of polygamists who desire to be received into the church, to leave the 
ultimate decision of all such cases in India to the synod of India.” The memorialists 



20 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


add: “ It is the almost unanimous opinion of the members of the synod that, under 
some circumstances, converts who liave more than one wife, together with their 
entire families, should be baptized.” 

Not only is it thus the fact that more than four-fifths of the members of the synod 
of India believe that it may sometimes be our duty, under the conditions of society 
in India, to baptize a polygamist without requiring him first to put away all his 
wives but one, but when the missionary ladies present during the sessions of synod, 
desirous of ascertaining the state of opinion among themselves on this subject, 
took a vote thereupon, of these 36 ladies, many of them intimately familiar with 
the interior of zenana life for years', all feeling no less hatred of polygamous mar¬ 
riage than their sisters in America, all but three signified their agreeinent with the 
majority of synod, of which minority of three two had been only a few days in 
India and were therefore without any experience touching the practical questions 
involved. Nor is this large majority of our missionaries singular in their belief on 
this subject. 

When some years ago the question was debated in the Pan jab missionary confer¬ 
ence, in which a large number of the missionaries and eminent Christian laymen of 
all denominations took part, ten out of twelve of the speakers expressed the same 
opinion as that held by more than four-fifths of the synod of India to-day. So the 
Rev. Dr. James J. Lucas, of Saharanpur, says that the brethren who maintained the 
lawfulness of not requiring a polygamist to put away any of his wives as a prerequisite 
to baptism “are not even in a minority in the missionary body in India.” 

A few years ago the Madura Mission voted in favor of baptizing such, provided 
they had contracted their marriages in ignorance and there was no equitable way of 
securing a separation. Their action was disapproved by the American board, but it 
none the less illustrates again what is the judgment of a large part of those who, liv¬ 
ing in India, are in most intimate relation to the living facts, and who are thus far 
better qualified to form a right decision than can be the wisest men at home. 

******* 

Again, as bearing on the polygamist’s duty, it should be noted that in the great 
majority of cases among the Hindus the second marriage is contracted because of 
the first wife having no children. So that when the general assembly requires the 
polygamist convert to put away all wives but the first, it requires him not only to 
signalize his conversion by violating a contract held valid alike by his Christian rulers 
and a large part of his Christian brethren, but to do this in such a way as shall inflict 
the greatest amount possible of cruel injustice and suffering, by turning out of his 
house that wife who is the mother of his children (who will naturally in most cases 
have to go with her) and denying to her conjugal rights of protection and cohabita¬ 
tion which he had pledged her. 

The wrong involved is aggravated under the conditions of life in India, in that it 
will commonly be practically impossible for the wife turned off, whichever she be, 
to escape the suspicion of being an unchaste woman, and she will inevitably be 
placed in a position where, with good name beclouded and no lawful protector,"^ she 
will be under the strongest temptation to live an immoral life. No doubt polygamy 
is wrong; but then, is not breach of faith and such injustice and cruelty to an inno¬ 
cent woman and her children also wrong? If there is a law against polygamy, is 
there not a law also against these things even more explicit and indubitable? In the 
case supposed both can not be kept. Which shall the man be instructed to break? 

The general assembly of 1875 appears to have imagined that the injustice was done 
away by enjoining a man to “make suitable provision for her support that is put 
way, and for her children, if she have any.” But this utterly fails to meet the 
c se. For the breach of faith required remains, since the marriage contract, both 
ccording to Scripture and the law of all Christian lands, as well as of India, binds 
the husband not only to support, but equally to protection and cohabitation. But i 
by the deliverence of 1875 all miasionaries in non-Christian lands are directed bv the 
general assembly to instruct the convert that, in order to baptism, he must keep the i 
compact as regards the first particular, but break it as regards the others. 

Moreover, the moral end sought will, even so, not be gained. The wife put away 
may live in a separate house and at a distance—but then polygamists sometimes keep ; 
different wives in different homes—and it will not be easy to persuade a Hindoo or ’ 
Mohammedan community, especially if the man still continue to give her money as ’ 
required by the assembly’s law, that cohabitation really ceases. 

In India and Christian Opportunity, a book published in lOOd, the I 
author of which is Harlan P. Beach, M. A., F. R. G. S., in dealing j 





IN RE REED SMOOT. 


21 


with the general subject of “‘Problems connected with new converts,” 
the author, at page 222, says: 

1. Poliigamy .—One difticiilty in the way of receiving a professed convert, though 
affecting only a small i)ercentage of candiilates, is a most perplexing one; it is that 
of applicants who have more than one wife. As Hindoo or Mohammedan they have 
entered in good faith into marriage contracts with these wives, and if a man puts 
away all but one, what provision shall be made for the rejected, and on what priii- 
ci])le shall he decide as to the one to be retained? 

bile it is a question easily answered in missionary society councils at home, it 
is a more serious problem at the front. Some good missionaries hold that where 
the husband is living the Christian life in all sincerity it is better to receive into the 
church such a candidate—though not eligible to any church office—than to require 
him to give up all but one wife and thus brand with illegitimacy his children by 
them, as well as occasion the wives so put away endless reproach and embarrassments. 

In rndia'’s Problem, Krishna or Christ, which was published in 1903, 
tlie author of which is John P. Jones, I). D., of southern India, A. B. 
C. F. M., the author, in dealing with this question, says, on pages 289 
and 290: 

In the consideration of the problem many things must be kept in mind. None 
more important than the claims to a cordial welcome from the church of any man 
who, in true faith and Christian earnestness, seek admittance. If it be demanded of 
the man that_ he put away all but one of those wives taken in heathenism, then we 
ask whether it is Christian, or even just, to cast away one to whom he was solemnly 
and religiously ]>ledged according to the laws of the land and with whom he has 
l)een linked in love and harmony for years and from whom he has gotten children? 
And if he is to put away one or more of his wives, which one shall it be? Shall it 
be the first wife'* 

j Certainly that would not be Christian. Or shall it be the second wife who is the 
mother of his children and whom he probably married at the request of the first 
j who was childless in order that he might raise seed unto himself? It is not easy 
' on Christian grounds to decide such a y:)roblem as this, nor is it very Christian to put 
a ban upon any woman who, in accordance with their religion and their country’s 
: laws, has formed this sacred alliance with a man and has lived with him for years. 

Nor can it be right to brand with illegitimacy the /children born of such a wedlock. 

I I would not allow such persons, received into the Christian church, to become 
i officers of the church. But I can not see why there may not be an humble place in 
* the church of God for such and their families. 

i Whatever ma}^ be our personal views as to the propriety of the con¬ 
duct of the people of Utah, in thus practicall}" overlooking the con¬ 
tinuance of polygamous relations where those relations arose out of 
marriages celebrated before the manifesto of 1890, there can be no 
doubt that when Reed Smoot, in April, 1900, became an apostle of the 
]\Iormon Church, the great majority of the j)eople of the State, non- 
Mormons as well as INIormons, had y^ractically agreed that it would be 
unwise to prosecute those who are living in such relations, or to in 
anywise interfere with them, unless those relations were flagrantly 
obtruded upon public notice. 

REED SMOOT NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR POLYGAMY. 

The charge of the protestants in this case, in substance, is that Reed 
Smoot connived at and encouraged, thereby becoming responsible for, 
the polygamous relations of certain of the officials of the church and 
of other polygamists. There is no evidence to support this charge 
except the fact that he acquiesced without protest in what the people 
of Utah generally accepted as unavoidable. In his answer and in his 
testimony, on his oath, he has positively denied that he has ever ad¬ 
vised any person to violate the law either against polygamy or against 
polygamous cohabitation. 




22 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


No witness has been produced who has testified that he ever heard 
the respondent give any such advice, or in any wise defend such acts. 
The most anybody has attempted to charge is that he has, like others, 
both Mormons and non-Mormons, ignored the oflense of polygamous 
cohabitation both in the church and under the laws of the State when 
such polygamous cohabitation was in consequence of plural marriages 
solemnized before 1890. 

In view of the general situation and the fact that non-Mormons, 
even the most active opponents of the church, had by common consent 
adopted the policy of acquiescence as the wisest .plan to pursue as to 
polygamous cohabitation, relying on time and the course of nature to 
cure the trouble, we do not think such passive acquiescence on the 
part of Mr. Smoot can be held to amount to such an indorsement and 
encouragement of pol 3 ^gamous cohabitation as to make him responsible 
for it. 

POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGES SINCE 1890. 

It is further charged that notwithstanding the acts of Congress for¬ 
bidding them, and in defiance of the manifesto of 1890, polygamous 
marriages have been celebrated by the authorities of the church since 
1890. 

We have already" shown that since the manifesto’forbidding the cele¬ 
bration of plural marriages became the law of the church by being' 
ratified at a semi-annual conference of the church, neither the presi¬ 
dent of the church nor any other officer thereof has the power to cele¬ 
brate a plural marriage which would be an}^ more binding under the 
law of the church than it would be under the law of the land. 

Evidence relating to such plural marriages since 1890 could, of 
course, be competent in this case only as it might, with other evidence, 
tend to show that the respondent has advised such marriages, or in 
some way connived at or approved them. 

On this point there is some evidence tending to show, but not in fact 
showing, that in the period of over fifteen years which has elapsed 
since the manifesto of 1890 was promulgated there may have been 
some fifteen or twent}^ cases in which a member of the Mormon Church 
has cohabited with a woman as his plural wife with whom he sustained 
no such relation prior to 1890. 

In only one instance has the evidence shown the actual performance 
of the marriage ceremony and that occurred in Mexico. In that case 
it appears that a woman named Kennedy, in the year 1896, with her 
mother, on several occasions appealed to Apostle Teasdale, in Mexico, 
to mariT her to a man who was already married and had a wife living, 
and that the apostle, whenever appealed to, refused to perform the 
marriage ceremony on the ground that it was forbidden by the church. 

The parties then traveled in a wagon about 75 miles to an out-of- 
the-way place where, according to the testimony of the woman, Brig¬ 
ham Young, jr., another apostle, did marry her to the man in question. 
At the time this testimony was given Brigham Young, jr., was dead. 
No person testified to the ceremony except the woman who was mar¬ 
ried, and she stated that she did not tell Brigham Young that the man 
whom she was marrying had a wife living, and that so far as she knew 
he was not informed of that fact by any person. 

There was no evidence offered tending to prove that the respondent 
had any knowledge of this alleged plural marriage until it (jame out 
in the testimony before the committee. 




IN RE REED SMOOT. 


23 


^ Anion^ the cases of alleged plural marriage since 1890, referred to 

Vi 1 ^^*® those of two of the apostles, John W. Tayler and 

Mathias F. Cowley. 

, L. E. Abbott gave testimony tending to show 

that It became public talk in or about 1902 that Tayler had then 
lecently taken two plural^ ^yives. As to Apostle Cowley, the testi- 
mony is exceedingly indetinite as to whether he took a plural wife at 
all since 1890, and if so, when. 

The respondent was examined as a witness in his own behalf, after 
the testimony with reference to the alleged recent plural marriages of 
apostles had been introduced, and on this subject testified 
that he knew nothing about the alleged marriages until the testimony 
relating to them was introduced here before the committee. He 
further said that he would^ ask that an investigation be made by the 
I church authorities, and if it turned out that the charges were true he 
would not again vote to sustain them as apostles. 

Ihe taking of testimonv in this case was closed and the case sub¬ 
mitted to the committee after argument by counsel in February, 1905. 
But at the beginning of the present session, it being made known to 
the committee that it was desired to introduce further evidence on 
behalf of the protestants, the case was reopened and further testimony 
was heard on behalf of both the protestants and the respondent. The 
testimony was closed the second time on March 27, 1906; but, consult¬ 
ing the convenience of counsel for the protestants, the hearing by the 
committee of the final arguments of counsel in this case was postponed 
until April 12, 1906. 

On account of these delays, for which neither the respondent nor 
his counsel are in anywise responsible, the case was not finally sub¬ 
mitted to the committee for determination until after the final confer¬ 
ence of the Mormon Church, which was held at Salt Lake City on April 
j 6, 1906. At that conference it was made known that Taylor and 
Cowley had resigned from their positions as apostles in the preceding 
October, and that the resignations had been acceyjted. The conference 
approved this action, and also filled the vacancies thus created by new 
appointments. 

We deem it unnecessary to go at length into the evidence relating 
to the other alleged plural marriages since 1890, for the reason that 
there is no evidence whatever in the record which even tends to show, 
as to an\" such plural marriage, actual or alleged, that the respondent 
had aii}^ knowledge that it was intended such marriage should be cele¬ 
brated, or that he ever countenanced it in any way or that, since it 
took place, he has at any time or in any way expressed approval of it. 

In 1890, when the manifesto was promulgated, there were in the 
Mormon Church, according to church statistics, in the United States 
some 2,451 polygamous families. In May, 1902, this number had been 
reduced to 897. How many are left and how many of them are in 
Utah it is impossible to say; but probably about 500 would be a fair 
estimate. Many of the heads of these families are of advanced age. 
The population of Utah at the present time is about 500,000. 

These figures strongly tend to show that, as a matter of fact, new 
polygamous marriages in Utah, in any considerable numbers, can not 
■ have taken place since 1890. In further evidence of this fact, and as 
showing the state of public sentiment as to polygamous cohabitation, 
we insert here an extract from the Congressional Record of February 




24 


IN KE REED SMOOT. 


5, 1903, pa^e 1729 et seq., showing a statement made by Senator 
Du])ois, who is well known to have familiar knowledge of this subjeet: 

[Congressional Record, Feb. 5, 1903, p. 1729, ct seq.] 

Mr. Dubois. * * * Various causes operated to cause the Mormons to abandon 
polygamy. There was a feeling among the younger members of the Mormon Church, 
and a very strong feeling, that polygamy should be done away with. So here was 
this pressure within the church against polygamy and the pressure by the Govern¬ 
ment from outside the church against polygamy. 

In 1891, I think it was, the president of the Mormon Church issued a manifesto 
declaring that thereafter there should be no polygamous marriages anywhere in the 
Mormon Church. The Mormons were then called together in one of their great 
conferences, where they meet by the thousands. This manifesto was issued to them 
by the first presidency, which is their authority, was submitted to them, and all the 
Mormon people ratified and agreed to this manifesto, doing away with polygamy 
thereafter. 

“The Senator from Maine (Mr. Hale) will recall that I came here as a Senator 
from Idaho shortly after that, and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Platt) will i 
recall how bitter and almost intemperate I was in my language before his committee | 
and on the floor of the other House in the denunciation of these practices of the i 

Mormon Church. But after that manifesto was issued, in common with all of the I 

Gentiles of that section who had made this fight, we said: 

“They have admitted the right of our contention and say now, like children who 
have been unruly, we will obey our parents and those who have a right to guide us; 
we will do those things no more.” Therefore we could not maintain our position 
and continue punishing them unless it was afterwards demonstrated that they would 
not comply with their promise. 

After a few years in Idaho, where the fight was the hottest and the thickest, we 
wiped all of those laws from our statute books which aimed directly at the Mormon 
people; and to-day the laws on the statute books of Idaho against polygamy and 
kindred crimes are less stringent than in almost any other State in the Union. I 
live among those people; and, so far as I know, in Idaho there has not beeji a polyg¬ 
amous marriage celebrated since that manifesto was issued, and I have yet to find 
a man in Idaho or anywhere else who will say that a polygamous marriage has been 
celebrated anywhere since the issuance of that manifesto. 

Mr. Hale. Then, it must follow from that, as the years go by and as the older 
people disappear, polygamy as a practice will be practically removed. 

Mr. Dubois. There is no question about it; and I will say to the Senator, owing to 
the active part which we took in that fierce contest in Idaho, I with others who had 
made that fight thought we were justified in making this promise to the Mormon 
people. We had no authority of law, but we took it upon ourselves to assure them 
that those older men who were living in the polygamous relation, who had growing 
families which they had reared and were rearing before the manifesto was issued, 
and at a time when they thought they had a right under the Constitution to enter 
into polygamous relation—that those older men and women and their children 
should not be disturbed; that the polygamous man should be allowed to support his . 
numerous wives and their children. 

The polygamous relations, of course, should not continue, but we would not com¬ 
pel a man to turn his families adrift. We promised that the older ones who had 
contracted those relations before the manifesto was issued would not be persecuted 
by the Gentile; thafitime would be given for them to pass away, but that the law 
would be strenuously enforced against any polygamous marriage which might be 
contracted in the future. 

As further evidence of the same character we call attention to the i 
testimony of Judge Charles W. Morse, a member of the Methodist 
Church and one of the judges of the third judicial district of Utah. 

In May, 1903, by his direction, a special grand jury was convened at 
Salt Lake City for the purpose of investigating charges that new 
polygamous marriages were being celebrated. This grand jury was ^ 
composed of Mormons and non-Mormons. Its report will be found 
on pages 867 to 870 of volume 3 of the testimony. In their report • ' 
they say: 

I 

We have investigated thoroughly all such cases brought to our attention by the 
district attorney and by citizens who have appeared before us, which Were reported ! 





IN RE REED SMOOT. 


25 


to have occurred within the jurisdiction of this court, and have not been able to 
secure evidence that a single case of polygamy has occurred in this district since 
Utali became a State. The rumors of the commission of this crime seem to have 
grown out of innocent circumstances, which in ordinary communities would have 
created no suspicion or scandal, but which here, probably owing to a feature of our 
territorial histor}', have been seized upon and the crime assumed without evidence, 
much to the chagrin and injury of innocent citizens, and greatly to the detriment of 
our State and its reputation throughout the nation. Those who prize the fair name 
of our State and the rights of our neighbors should hereafter be more careful to 
secure facts and evidence before charging this crime. 

Judg’e McCarty, whose testiiiioiiv has already lieen referred to, 
testified as follows: 

INIr. tVoRTiTiNGTON. I aiii coming down to that question next. What is your 
observation there as to whether, as a matter of fact, the number of people living in 
polygamy has decreased since 1890 in Utah? 

Mr. McCarty. Ch, the change has been phenomenal. 

Mr. Worthington. Phenomenal? 

jNIr. IMcCarty. Yes; iihenomenal. There are only a very few. In the little town 
in which I resided there for over twenty years there were a large number of polyga¬ 
mists. Oh, there must have been in the neighborhood of twenty of them, and 1 can 
not call to mind now but three of those old men who are living. They have all died 
or moved away. Two of them procured divorces, either a church divorce for a plu¬ 
ral wife or a divorce in the courts for the legal wife. 

Mr. Worthington, ^^dlat town is that to which you refer? 

Mr. McCarty. That is Monroe. 

INIr. Worthington. So that there polygamy is practically extinct? 

Mr. McCarty. Yes; and what can be said of Monroe can be said of most other 
towns in the State. 

i\Ir. Worthington. Most other towns in the State? 

INIr. IMcCarty. Yes. (Vol. 3, 888, 889.) 

THE MORMON CHURCH AND POLITICS. 

As to the charge that the Mormon Church interferes in and controls 
political affairs in Utah, we find the facts established by the evidence 
to be substantially as follow.^: From the time the Mormons reached 
Utah, in the summer of 18TT, until 1891 there were no political parties 
in that Territory in the sense in which that expression would be used 
in other parts of the United States. There grew up in the Territory 
of Utah during that time two parties, one known as the People’s Party,' 
which was comprised exclusively of members of the Mormon Church 
and was controlled }>}" the leaders of that church, and the Liberal 
Party, which was composed of non-Mormons. 

Owing to controversies concerning polygamy and other matters not 
in issue elsewhere in the United States, these two parties were not 
only composed, on the one hand, of members of a religious sect and 
on the other hand of those opposing that sect, but the controversy 
between the two parties was extremely bitter. It seems not to be 
controverted that until the year 1891 the People’s Party was not only 
dominated b}^ the church, but practically was the church. But after 
the manifesto of 1890, hereinbefore referred to, which forbade further 
polyg'amous marriages, many members both of the Liberal Party and 
of the People’s Party conceived it to be to the interests of the Terri¬ 
tory that the people* should divide on party lines as they were divided 
in other parts of the country, and that the Liberal Party and the 
People’s Party should be disbanded. 

In the course of a few months this purpose vras carried into eft'ect. 
The great majority of the voters of the Territory of Utah, Mormons 
and non-Mormons, became either Republicans or Democrats, and polit¬ 
ical controversies in the Territory till 1896 and after that time in the 



26 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


State have been waged, as a rule, on the lines of the national political 
parties. 

While it is no doubt true that the habit which the church and the 
members of the church had followed for so many years prior to the 
breaking up of the old parties of voters receiving counsel from officials 
of the church in regard to the selection of candidates for office was 
not at once completely broken off, yet the evidence further establishes 
that the improvement in this regard has been very rapid and that, of 
late years, the Mormon voters of the State adhere more closely to party 
lines than the non-Mormons do. AVe think the evidence establishes 
the fact that since Reed Smoot became an apostle of the Mormon 
Church on the 6th day of April, 1900, the Mormon Church has not 
controlled or attempted to control elections in Utah. ; 

It is claimed, however, that the church, by an instrument called the 
“ Political Rule,” has required of its members holding office in the ^ 
church that before they shall become candidates for any political posi- ( 
tion they shall receive the consent of the church authorities; and that 1 
by this device the church has controlled the election of Senators of the j 
United States. I 

This political rule will be found on pages 168 to 171, Volume I, of j 
the printed report of the testimony before the committee. The mean- j 
ing and effect of this instrument were very fully considered in the 
case of Moses Thatcher, who in 1896 was a candidate before the legis¬ 
lature of the State of Utah for election as Senator of the United I 
States. i 

Thatcher, at the time, was one of the twelve apostles of the church, | 

and he did not seek or obtain the consent of the church authorities to j 

this candidacy. For this offense he was tried before a high church | 
tribunal. The decision of this tribunal, the acceptance thereof by 
Moses Thatcher, and the acquiescense by the church authorities in the 
terms upon which he accepted the conclusion of the tribunal, will be 
found upon pages 563 to 573 of the same volume. Mr. Thatcher was 
a witness before the committee, and his testimony on this subject will 
be found on pages 1038 to 1040 of that volume. 

The upshot of it all is that the political rule, as construed by these 
proceedings, left Thatcher, to use his own words, absolutel}^ free as an 
American citizen, to exercise his rights as such, and left all the officers 
of the church absolutely free. In his acceptance of the decision of 
the council Thatcher expressly stipulated that in accepting it he vio¬ 
lated none of the engagements theretofore entered into by him, ‘‘under 
the requirements of party pledges respecting the political independ¬ 
ence of the citizen who remains untrameled, as contemplated in the 
guaranties of the State constitution.” 

Indeed, in the political rule itself, it is expressly stated that if any 
officer of the church wishes to become a candidate for a political office, 
or to enter into an}^ other engagement which will interfere with the 
duties of his church office, he may do so without soliciting or obtain¬ 
ing the consent of the church or its authorities by resigning his eccle¬ 
siastical position. The whole purport and effect of the rule seems to 
be that high church officials, fflling positions which require them to 
give their time to their ecclesiastical duties, shall not enter into any 
engagements of any kind, political or otherwise, which require them 
to abandon or neglect such ecclesiastical duties, without first obtain¬ 
ing the consent of the authorities of the church. 



IN RE REED SMOOT. 


27 


Thus construed the rule seems to be a reasonable one; but whether 
reasonable or unreasonable it does not vseeni to us that it is within the 
province of the General Government to interfere with it or punish in 
any way the members of the church because of its promulgation. 

_ The evidence in the case clearly establishes that Mr. Smoot, for some 
tinie before he became a candidate for the Senate and even before he 
became an apostle, was one of the leaders of the Republican party in 
the State of Utah; that he had been frequently spoken of either as a 
candidate for the governorship of the State or the Senate of the United 
States; that when he became a candidate for the Senate he was, in the 
w’ords of some of the witnesses, the logical candidate for that office, 
and that he was elected by the votes of the Republicans in the legisla¬ 
ture, Mormons and non-Mormons, and was opposed by the Democrats 
in that body, Mormons and non-Mormons. He says, in his testimony, 
that before formalh’^ becoming a candidate, he went to the first presi¬ 
dent of the church and obtained the consent of the Church to his 
becoming a candidate. 

As already intimated, if that consent had been refused, it meant no 
more than if he became a Senator he must give up his apostleship. 

There has been no evidence offered tending to show that any 
member of the Mormon Church has ever asked consent to become a 
candidate for any office and been refused. 

THE ENDOWMENT OATH. 

The only other charge made against the respondent which, in our 
opinion, merits attention was made in the protest signed by John L. 
Leilich, as follows: 

That the oath of office required of and taken by the said Reed Smoot as an apostle 
of the said church is of such a nature and character that he is thereby disqualified 
from taking the oath of office required of a United States Senator. (1; 28.) 

This same charge was in eff ect made in the protest signed by W. M. 
Paden and 17 others in the following clause as a deduction from pre¬ 
vious statements, rather than a specific charge in itself: 

We submit that however formal and regular may be Apostle Smoot’s credentials 
or his qualifications by way of citizenship, whatever his protestations of patriotism 
and loyalty, it is clear that the obligations of any official oath which he may sub¬ 
scribe are and of necessity must be as threads of tow compared with the covenants 
which bind his intellect, his will, and his affections, and which hold him forever in 
accord with and subject to the will of a defiant and law breaking apostolate. (1; 25.) 

In the sworn answer made by the respondent to these charges on 
this subject he says: 

As to the charge that the respondent is bound by some oath or obligation control¬ 
ling his duty and his oath as a Senator, the respondent says that he has never taken 
any such oath or in any way assumed any such obligations. He holds himself 
bound to obey and uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, including 
the condition in reference to polygamy upon which the State of Utah was admitted 
into the Union; (1; 31.) 

During the examination of the first witness called by the protestants, 
Joseph F. Smith, a discussion arose in which Senator Hoar stated that 
he understood that the committee had reached a conclusion that there 
were two issues in the case—one whether Reed Smoot had practiced 
polygamy, which the Senator understood had been abandoned, and 
that the only other one was whether or not as an official of the Mormon 



28 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


Church the respondent took nn oath or obligation that was superior in 
his estimation and in its requirements upon liim to the oath or obliga¬ 
tion which he must take to quality him as a Senator. 

Thereupon Senator Dubois stated that both these contentions were 
set aside entirely and that it was not contended that they would be 
attempted to be proved b}^ the attorne^^s representing the protestants. 
(1; 114.) in the course of further discussion a member of the com¬ 
mittee having stated that he never knew until Mr. Tayler had stated 
it that he had abandoned the idea of proving that the respondent had 
taken an obligation that interfered with the obligations of his oath, 
Mr. Tayler replied: 

I can not abandon that \vhi(3h I never occupied or possessed. 

Senator Dubois added, ‘‘ He never alleged it.” (1; 115.) 

On a subsequent day, Senator Beveridge, in order, as he stated, to 
correct what he thought was a mistake in the popular mind as to what 
were the charges against the respondent which the committee was con¬ 
sidering, said that it had been charged that the respondent was a 
polygamist, which charge had been withdrawn, and that he had been 
charged with taking an oath inconsistent with his duty as a Senator, 
which Senator Beveridge understood Mr. Ta 3 der to say was not a 
charge that had been withdrawn, but was such a charge as had never ^ 
been made, and that, therefore, the issue upon which the committee 
would proceed from that time on, so far as the protestants were con¬ 
cerned, was whether the respondent was a member of a conspiracy.* 

Thereupon Senator Dubois again stated that no charge had been 
made against Mr. Smoot of taking an oath inconsistent with his oath 
as Senator except the Leilich charge, which had been abandoned and 
repudiated, and that the attorneys for the respondent ‘‘have been tiying 
to force the protestants to issues which the}" themselves have never 
raised.” (Vol. 1, p. 126.) 

This was the state of the record when the testimony of Joseph F. 
Smith and several other witnesses had been taken, and the examination 
of Francis M. Lyman, one of the apostles, was progressing. 

He was asked by the chairman to state what the “cerenion}" is in 
going through the endowment house.” This being objected to by the 
counsel for respondent, the chairman said: 

One of the charges is that Mr. Smoot has taken an oath or obligation incompatible 
with his obligation as a Senator. The object of this question is to ascertain from 
this witness, who went through the endowment house—of course, I know nothing 
about it—whether any such obligation is taken. 

Counsel for the respondent having thereupon stated that they under¬ 
stood that that charge had been expressly disclaimed b}^ counsel for 
the protestants, the chairman replied: 

Counsel stated that they did not propose, as far as they were concerned, to offer 
any proof upon that question, but the chair did not understand that therefore the 
committee was precluded from showing it. (l^ 436.) 

A little later in the same session, Mr. Tayler, counsel for the prot¬ 
estants, again stated: 

It is in respect of those two things around which all of this case gathers—polygamy 
and the direction of the people by the apostolate—and if those two were eliminated 
this hearing would not be going on here. (1; 463.) 



IN RE REED SMOOT. 


29 


After the chairman of the committee had ruled as above stated that 
the witness Lyman was required to answer the question, his examina¬ 
tion on this subject proceeded as follows: 

The Chairman. At ill you please state what the ceremonv is hi going through the 
endowment house? * & & & 

INIr. Lyman. I could not do so. 

_ My Worthington. I object to that, Mr. Chairman, on the ground that it is inquir¬ 
ing into a matter prior to 1890, and I understood, or we were informed, that the 
committee had decided that would not be done. 

The Chairman. One of the c^^harges is that Mr. Smoot has taken an oath or obliga¬ 
tion incompatible vvith his obligation as a Senator. The object of this question is to 
ascertain from this ^vitness, who went through the endowment house—of course I 
know nothing about it—whether any such obligation is taken. 

Mr. Lyman. Is that the question you asked me, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. No; that was not my question. It was a statement to counsel. 

Mr. A\ orthington. I had understood, Mr. Chairman, that that was expressly dis¬ 
claimed by counsel here the other day. 

The Chairman. Counsel stated thal they did not propose, as far as they were con¬ 
cerned, to offer any proof upon that question; but the Chairman did not understand 
that therefore the committee was precluded frbm showing it. Is there any objection 
to the question? 

iNIr. AVorthington. I do objecd to it for the reasons already stated; and, further, 
because it does not follow at all that because the witness went through certain cere¬ 
monies or took certain obligations, if you please. Senator Smoot took them. 

The Chairman. That vvould not follow of itself. If nothing further than this can 
be shown, of course it will have no bearing upon Mr. Smoot at all. Read the ques¬ 
tion, Mr. Reporter. 

The reporter read as follows: 

The Chairman. AAdll you please state what the ceremony is in going through the 
endowment house? 

Mr. Lyman. I could not do so. 

Mr. AA'orthington. I do insist upon my objection. I understood the chair to ask 
me whether I had any further objection. 

The Chairman. The chair thinks it is permissible; and, as the chair stated, if noth¬ 
ing appears beyond this to connect INlr. Smoot with it, of course it will have no bear¬ 
ing upon the case. Can you state what that ceremony was? 

Mr. Lyman. I could not, Mr. Chairman; I could not do so if it was to save my life. 

The Chairman. You could not? 

Mr. Lyman. No, sir. 

The Chairman Can you state any portion of it? 

Mr. Lyman. I might approximate something of it that I remember. 

The Chairman. As nearly as you can. 

Mr. Lyman. I remember that I agreed to be an upright and moral man, pure in my 
life. I agreed to refrain from sexual commerce with any woman except my wife or 
wives, as were given to mein the priesthood. Thelawof purity I subscribed to willingly, 
of my own choice, and to be true and good to all men. I took no oath nor obligation 
against any person or any country or government or kingdom or anything of that 
kind. I remember that distinctly. 

The Chairman. Of course the charge is made, and I want to know the facts. You 
would know about it, having gone through the endowment house? 

Mr. Lyman. Yes. 

The Chairman. There was nothing of that kind? 

Mr. Lyman. Nothing of that kind. 

The Chairman. No obligation or oath? 

Mr. Lyman. Not at all; no, sir. (1; 436,437). 

After this had occurred, Joseph F. Smith was recalled, and on this 
subject was further examined by counsel for the respondent, as follows: 

Mr. Tayler. I wish to ask two questions. Mr. Smith, something has been said 
about an endowment oath. I do not want to go into that subject or to inquire of you 
what it is, but whatever oath or obligation has been taken by those who have been 
admitted to the church, at whatever stage it is taken, is the same now that it has 
been for years? 

Mr. Smith. It is the same that it has always been. 

Mr. Tayler. It is the same that it has always been? 




30 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


Mr. Smith. Yes, so far as 1 know. 

Mr. Tayler. No other oatii is taken now than heretofore? 

Mr. Smith. I should like to say that there is no oath taken; that we abjure oaths. 
We do not take oaths unless we are forced to take them. 

Mr. Tayler. 1 understand. You understand what I mean—any obligation- 

Mr. Smith. Covenant or agreement—we do that. 

Mr. Tayler. Any obligation of loyalty to the church such as would be proper to 
be taken? 

Mr. Smith. Certainly. 

Mr. Tayler. That is the same now that it has always-been? 

Mr. Smith. Y'es, sir; that it has always been, so far as I know. I can only say 
that they are the same as they were revealed to me. 

Mr. Tayler. Exactly. 

Mr. Smith. And as they were taught to me. 

Mr. Tayler. You have known them for forty years or more? 

Mr. Smith. I have been more or less acquainted with them for a great many years. 
(1; 484.) 

It will be seen that neither the witness L^aiian nor the witness Joseph 
F. Smith declined to answer an}^ question that was put to him wdth 
regard to this alleged covenant‘or obligation. 

The next witness on the subject (who, like the two preceding wit¬ 
nesses, was summoned and examined on behalf of the protestants), was 
Brigham H. Roberts. After counsel for the protestants had examined 
this witness and announced that they had no further questions to ask 
him, the following occurred: 

The Chairman. Mr. Roberts, there is another subject upon which I want to ask 
you a question. It has been stated here that the endowment house was taken down 
in 1890. 

Mr. Roberts. I think earlier than that. 

The Chairman. Well, at some time it was taken down? 

]Mr. Roberts. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did you ever go through the endowment house? 

Mr. Roberts. A^es, sir. 

The Chairman. When? 

Mr. Roberts. I think it was in 1877. 

The Chairman. Have you been present at times when others have passed through 
the endowment house? 

INIr. Roberts. A’es, sir. 

The Chairman. Frequently? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is the ceremony that used to be performed in what was called the 
endowment house performed now? 

Mr. Roberts. I think so. 

The Chairman. Where? 

Mr. Roberts. When? 

The Chairman. Where, I say? 

Mr. Roberts. In the temples, as I understand it. 

The Chairman. How many temples are there in Utah? 

Mr. Roberts. I believe there are four. 

The Chairman. And the ceremony that used to be performed in the endowment 
house is now performed in the temple? 

Air. Roberts. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. He says he thinks it is. He does not know. 

The Chairman. Do you remember the ceremony? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir; I do not remember the ceremonies distinctly. 

The Chairman. Do you remember any portion of it? 

Mr. Roberts. Only in a general way, Senator. 

The Chairman. Do you know, Mr. Roberts, of any change in the ceremony per¬ 
formed in the Endowment House and as it is performed to-day in the temple? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. 

The Chairman. The ceremony is the same. Now, will vou state to the committee 
what that ceremony was, or is, as nearly as you can? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, the ceremonies consist of what would be considered a series of 
ceremonies, I take it, of which I only have a general impression. 






IN RE REED SMOOT. - 31 

caS?^ Chairman. \ on have something more than a general impression in your own 

Mr. Roberts. No; I think not. 

through the Endowment 

Mr. Roberts. M^ll, part of one day. 

The Chairman Who were present at the time? Do you remember? 

JVlr. Roberts. I do not remember. 

The Chairman. Can you tell the committee anv portion of that ceremony? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. . 

The Chairman. Why not? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, for one reason, I do not feel at liberty to do so. 

The Chairman. MTiy not? 

Mr. Roberts. Because I consider myself in trust in relation to those matters, and 
1 (to not teel at liberty to make any disclosures in relation to them. 

The Chairman. It was then a Sc-cret? 

Mr. Roberts. Yes. 

The Chairman. Does this religious denomination have, as one of its ceremonies, 
secret obligations or covenants? 

jNlr. Roberts. I think they could not be properly called secrets. Of course they 
are common to all Avorthy members of the church, and generally known bv them. 

The Chairman. Well, secret from the world? 

^Ir. Roberts. Secret from the world. 

The Chairman. The oliligations and covenants, whatever they are, then you are 
not at liberty to disclose? ^ 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir; I M’ould be led to regard those obligations as similar to 
those who perhaps have passed through masonic fraternities, or are members of 
masonic fraternities. 

The Chairman. Then your church organization in that particular is a sort of 
I\Iasonic fraternity? 

Mr. Roberts. It is analogous, perhaps, in some of its features. 

The Chairman. You say you can remember, of course, what occurred, but you do 
not feel at liberty to disclose it, and for that reason you will not disclose it? 

Mr. Roberts. Not specifically. I do not wish, however. Senator, to be understood 
as being in any sense defiant in that matter. 

The Chairman. That is not so understood, Mr. Roberts, at all. 

Mr. Roberts. I do not wish to put myself in opposition or raise any issue here at all. 

The Chairman. The reason you have assigned is accepted. The obligation, what¬ 
ever it is, taken in the Endowment House, is such that you do not feel at liberty to 
disclose it? 

Mr. Roberts. That is right. 

The Chairman. Should you do so, what would you expect as the result? 

Mr. Roberts. I would expect to lose caste with my people as betraying a trust. " 

Senator Overman. Do all members of the church have to go througli that? 

Mr. Roberts. Not all members. 

Senator Overman. What proportion of them, and how is it regulated? 

Mr. Roberts. It is governed chiefly by worthiness—moral worthiness. 

Senator Bailey. And is it somewhat a matter of degrees, as it is in Masonry? I 
believe they have several degrees. 

The Chairman. Do you recall whether any penalty was imposed upon a person 
who should disclose the covenants? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You do not remember? 

]\Ir. Roberts. Beyond the disfavor and distrust of his fellows. 

The Chairman. Have you ever been present at a marriage ceremony in the 
temple? 

Mr. Robert. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Could you tell what that is? 

Mr. Roberts. I could not, only in a general way. The ceremony is of some length. 

I remember performing the ceremony in the case of my own daughter when she was 
married, and, not being familiar with the ceremony, a copy of it was placed in my 
hands and I read the ceremony, but I could only remember the general terms of it. 

The Chairman. If the members who have gone through the Endowment House, 
then, keep faith with the church they will not disclose what occurred? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. 

Senator Bailey, Do you feel at liberty, Mr. Roberts, to say whether or not there 
is anything in that ceremony that permits a man—I will adopt a different expres- 




32 


IN EE EEED SMOOT. 


sion—that abridges a man’s freedom of political action or action in any respect, 
except in a religions way? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. 

Senator Bailey. I do not quite understand whether you Ninean by your answer to 
say that you do not feel free to answer that or that there is nothing. 

Mr. Roberts. I mean to say that there is nothing. (1; 740, 742.) * * * 

The Chairman. I want to ask Mr. Roberts one further question. What is there in 
these obligations—I will not use the term “oaths’'—that makes it necessary to keep 
them from the world? 

Mr. Roberts. I do not know of anything especially, except it be their general 
sacredness. 

The Chairman. Their general sacredness? Ought sacred things to be kept from the 
world? 

Mr. Roberts. I think some sacred things ought to be. 

The Chairman. Could you name one sacred thing in connection with this cere¬ 
mony that should beTiept from the world? 

Mr. Roberts. No, sir. 

The Chairman. AVhy? Because you can not remember? 

Mr. Roberts. Well, I could not say that. I would not say that. Senator. 

The Chairman. You do remember it, then—the sacred thing that you mean? 

Mr. Roberts. Some sacred things 1 do. 

The Chairman. But you can not state to the committee what they are? 

INIr. Roberts. I ask to be excused from stating them. 

The Chairman. But I can not understand exactly how the church organization 
has things that the world must not know of. I did not know but you could give 
some reason why. 

Mr. Roberts. I do not think I could throw any light upon that subject. 

The Chairman. All right; I will not press it. (1-743.) 

^ ***** * 

INIr. Worthington. I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether this obligation or 
ceremony to which you refer in the Endowment House relates entirely to things 
spiritual or whether it relates to things temporal also? 

The Chairman. Would it not be better, Mr. Worthington, to let him state what 
the obligation is? 

Mr. Worthington. Yes, so far as I am concerned, I would very much prefer it, 
but 1 understand the suggestion by Senator Pettus was that he was interpreting that 
whicli he would state. 

Of course I do not know anything more about this than the members of the com¬ 
mittee do, but I think it might very well be that a witness might be allowed to state, 
and might properly say, that he would answer here as to anything that related to any 
temporal affairs; but as to things which related to matters between him and his God, 
or which he conceived to be between him and his God, he would not answer here or 
anywhere else, and that would not be an interpretation, but would simply be taking 
the protection which I understand the law gives to every man—that as to things 
which do relate entirely to religious matters they are matters which he has a right to 
keep within his own breast. 

The Chairman. Your question was whether these obligations related to spiritual 
affairs or temporal affairs. 

Mr. Worthington. Yes; that was my question. 

The Chairman. The trouble is he interprets a thing which is unknown and 
unseeable to us, and which he considers spiritual. 

Mr. Carlisle. What he considers spiritual we might consider temporal, if the 
matter itself was disclosed. 

The Chairman. It seems to me that the witness having refused to state what the 
ceremony is, or what the obligations demand, ought not to be questioned and per¬ 
mitted to state what he thinks it did not convey, or what obligation it imposed, or 
what it did not impose. The committee can judge pf that. 

Mr. WoRTHiNGTon. Of course, we are here not representing the witness, but rep¬ 
resenting only Senator Smoot. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Worthington. And it is the witness pleading a privilege and making the 
refusal, and not Senator Smoot or his counsel. We would like to have this question 
answered. 

The Chairman. What is the question? 

Mr. Worthington. The question is whether this obligation refers to things 
spiritual or things temporal. 

Senator Bailey. I do not think it makes any difference to the committee in the 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


33 


end, or will affect its conclusions, whether that is answered or not, lam partly 
responsible for that line of questions, and I asked the first question myself because 
i really intended to insist, if it related in any way to the duties of a citizen, that the 
committee was ptitled to know what that was, and if it did not, then I had no 
further jnterest in it. 

The Chairman. Let the witness answer that question. 

Mr. Roberts. May I have the question read? 

The Chairman. Certainly. 


The reporter read as follows: 

Mr. At ORTHiNOTON. I would like to ask, Mr. Roberts, whether this obligation or 
ceremony to which you refer in the endowment house relates entirely to things 
spiritual or whether it relates to things temporal also? 

Mr. Roberts. I reyjard them as relating to things spiritual, absolutely. 

Mr Tayler. If we were in a court of justice, and insisted upon it, I think that 
opens the door so wide that the whole oath would come in. 

The Chairman. I think so, too. 

Mr. Tayler. But I do not care to do it. (1; 745, 746.) 


The next witness called on behalf of the protestants was A. M. Can¬ 
non. After his examination by counsel for the protestants was con¬ 
cluded he was further examined by the chairman of the committee on 
this subject, and his testimony was as follows: 

The Chairman. Do you remember the covenant you took when vou went through 
the endowment house? 

Mr. Cannon. Oh, yes. 

The Chairman. Could j-ou s'late the ceremony? 

Mr. Cannon. I would not like to. 

The Chairman. Why not? 

Mr. Cannon. Because it is of a religious character, and it is simply an obligation 
that 1 enter into to be pure before my Maker and worthy of the attainment of my 
Redeemer and the fellowship and love of my children and their mothers, my departed 
ancestry, and my coming descendants. 

The Chairman. AV’hat objection is there to making that public? 

Air. Cannon, Because it is sacred. 

The Chairman. How sacred? 

Mr, Cannon. It is simply a covenant that I epter into with my Alaker in private. 

The Chairman. All the tenets of your religion are sacred, are they not? 

Air. Cannon. Sir? 

The Chairman. They are all sacred, are they not—the teachings? 

Air. Cannon. All of those are sacred; yes, all of those things. 

The Chairman. I do not quite understand why you should keep them secret. 

Air. Cannon. It is because it is necessary to keep them secret. If you will permit 
me. Air. Chairman, we admit only the purest of our people to enter there. 

The Chairman. People like you and the president of the church? I suppose the 
president of the church is admitted? 

Air. Cannon. The presidency of the church, if he continues in good standing, and 
our people whoever are in good standing and deemed worthy of the proper‘recom¬ 
mends are permitted to enter there. 

The Chairman. Do you enter into any obligation not to reveal these ceremonies? 

Air. Cannon. I feel it would be very improper to reveal them. 

The Chairman. I say, do you enter into any obligation not to? 

Air. Cannon. There are sacred obligations connected with all the higher ordinances 
of the church. 

The Chairman. In words, do you promise not to reveal? 

Air. Cannon. I feel that that is the trust reposed in me, that I will not go and- 

The Chairman. I think you do not understand my question. Do you promise 
specifically not to reveal what occurs in the endowment house? 

Air. Cannon. I would rather not tell what occurs there. I say this- 

The Chairman. I think, Mr. Cannon, you do not understand me. Do you prom¬ 
ise not to reveal what occurs in the endowment house when you go through? 

Air. Cannon. I feel that that is an obligation I take upon me when I do that. 

The Chairman. When you go through the endowment house do you take that 
obligation upon you in express terms? 

Air. Cannon. I think I do. 


S. Rep. 4253, pt 2, 59-1-3 





34 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


The Chairman. You know, do you not, whether you do or not? Why do you 
take that obligation not to reveal these things? 

Mr, Cannon. Because we are—I do not want to be disrespectful to this coniinittee. 

The Chairman. I know you would not be. 

Mr. Cannon. The Lord gave us to understand that we should not make common 
the sacred things that He committed to His disciples. He told them they mu.st not 
•do that lest they trample them under their feet and rend them. 

The Chairman. Do you remember whether there was any penalty attached ii they 
;should reveal? 

IMr, Cannon. I do not remember that there is any penalty. 

The Chairman. None whatever? 

Nlr. Cannon. I do not remember. 

The Chairman. Has there been any change in the ceremony of the endowment 
liouse since you went through in 1859, up to the present time, that you are aware of? 

Mr. Cannon. No. 

The Chairman. No change in the ceremony or obligations? 

Mr. Cannon, No. (1; 791, 792.) 

The next witness called by the protestants was Closes Thatcher. 
After counsel for the protestants had tinished their examination of Mr. 
Thatcher, the following- occurred: 

The Chairman. One other question: The endowment house, I believe, has been 
taken down? 

Mr. Thatcher. That is as I understand it. It has been taken down. 

The Chairman. Has the ceremony of the endowment house been wiped out also, 
■or is that performed now? 

Mr. Thatcher. 1 am just trying to think whether I have been through the temple, 
in the light in which I went through the endowment house, to give you a correct 
answer on that, but my impressions are that the ceremony has not been changed. 

The Chairman. You have seen the ceremonvin the temple? You have witnessed 
it? 

Mr. Thatcher. I think I have heard it. 

The Chairman. And you think there is no change in it? 

Mr. Thatcher. No, sir. 

The Chairman. When did you go through the endowment house? 

Mr. Thatcher. My impressionsare when 1 married the wife of my youth—in 1861. 

The Chairman. Will you state to the committee the ceremony in the endowment 
house? I do not mean the ceremony of marriage; but did you go through the 
■endowment house when you became an apostle? 

Mr. Thatcher. No, sir; it was not necessary. 

The Chairman, You have been through the endowment house, then, but once? 

Mr. Thatcher. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you state to the committee the ceremony of the endowment 
house? 

Mr. Thatcher. I think, Nlr. Chairman, that I might be excused on that. 

The Chairman. Why ? 

Mr. Thatcher. For the reason that those were held to be sacred matters and only 
ipertaining to religious vows. 

The Chairman. Are you obligated not to reveal them? 

Mr. Thatcher. Yes; 1 think I am. 

The Chairman. What would be the effect if you should disclose them? That is, 
is there any penalty attached? 

Mr. Thatcher. There would be no effect except upon mv own conscience. 

The Chairman. That is all? 

Mr. Thatcher. That is all. 

The Chairman. But you are under obligation as a part of the ceremony not to 
reveal it? 

Mr. Thatcher. Y^es, sir; I feel myself under such obligation. (1; 1048, 1049.) 

This was all the testimony on the suliject of the alleged oath or obli¬ 
gation taken during the sessions of the (‘ommittee held in the spring 
of 1904. The last session when testimony was taken during that spring- 
occurred on the 2d of May, 1904. When the taking of testimony was 
resumed in December, 1904, counsel for the protestants produced and 
examined certain witnesses on this subject, the substance of whose 
testimony w-ill now be stated. 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


35 


^ Mormon but who had formally 
uotmed the bishop of his ward, seven or eight months before he was 
examined, that he no longer considered himself a member of the 
chuich, testitied that on several occasions he had taken his endow¬ 
ments in the temple at Salt Lake City. When first examined he said 
that he did not know whether he had it exactly right; but that the 
substance of the so-called “oath of vengeance” is that those who took 
it promised and vowed that they “will never cease to importune high 
Heaven to avenge the blood of the prophets on the nations of the 
earth or the inhabitants of the earth.” He added that if his memory 
sei yed hirn, he thought that was about right, and that a passage of 
scripture is quoted from the Revelations, sixth chapter, ninth verse. 
(2; 79.) 

The next day Mr. \\ allis was recalled and testified that in repeating 
the obligation he had made a mistake; and that he should have said 
“upon this nation” instead of “upon the inhabitants of the earth.” 

( 2 ; us.) 

Two witnesses were called on behalf of the respondent to impeach 
Wallis. One of them Moroni Gillespie, who had been a member of 
the police force^ in Salt Lake City for eleven or twelv^e years, testified 
that he knew Wallis’s general reputation for truth and veracity in the 
community in which he lived; that it was bad; and that he would not 
believe him under oath. Wallis had testified that he had never been 
arrested. 

This witness testified that he was present in the police court on one 
occasion when Wallis w^as under arrest and plead guilty to the charge 
of drunkenness. Gillespie further testified that he had known Wallis 
for several j^ears and that, in his opinion, he was not altogether of 
sound mind. (3; 317, 318.) 

The other witness as to the veracity of Wallis was William Langton 
(2, 1022; 3, 143,144). Neither his testimony nor that of Gillespie was 
contradicted or impaired in any way. His conclusion, from what he 
had seen of Wallis, was that the man was crazy. He further testified 
that, in his opinion, Wallis’s general reputation foi truth and veracity 
was such that he would not believe him on oath. 

When Langton was. asked by counsel for the respondent to give his 
reasons for thinking that Wallis was of unsound mind, objection was 
made by the counsel for the protestants and the objection was sus¬ 
tained (3; 144). But subsequently he was recalled and allowed to give 
his reasons, which he did at length (3; 445). 

August W. Lundstrum, another witness for the protestants, testi¬ 
fied that he had taken the endowment six times, and that the obligation 
in question was: 

We and each of us solemnly promise and covenant that we shall ask God to 
avenge the blood of Joseph Smith upon this nation. (2; 151-153.) 

He subsequently slightly varies this statement by saying that the 
prayer was: “We ask God, the Eternal Father, to avenge the blood 
of Joseph Smith upon this nation.” (2; 161.) 

Three witnesses were called on behalf of the respondent to impeach 
Lundstrom. One of them, F. S. Fernstrom, testified that he had known 
Lundstrom for about fourteen years, and Lundstrom’s general reputa¬ 
tion for truth in the community in which he lived was bad, and that he, 
witness, would not believe him under oath. On cross-examination by 
counsel for the protestants the fact was brought out that Lundstrom 



36 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


had borrowed from s bishop part of a fund which the bishop had 
collected for the support of the poor, and that when asked by the 
bishop to return the money, Lundstrom refused to do it, saying that 
the church owed him a living. (2; 1012.) 

One of these witnesses, C. V. Anderson, testified that he knew 
Lundstrom’s general reputation for veracity in Salt Lake City, where 
he lived; that it was bad, and that the witness-did not think he would 
believe Lundstrom on oath. (2; 1013.) 

J. H. Hayward was the third witness on this subject. He testified 
that he had known Lundstrom for many years, the latter having been 
at one time in his employ; that he knew Lundstrom’s general reputa¬ 
tion for truth and veracity in Salt Lake City, where he lived; that it 
was bad, and that from his reputation the witness would not believe 
him under oath. 

This evidence as to Lundstrom’s reputation for truth and veracity 
was not rebutted in any way. 

The third and last witness called b}^ the protestants, during the ses¬ 
sions of the committee held in December, 1904, on this subject of the 
alleged obligation was Mrs. Annie Elliott, who testified that she had 
taken the endowments several times, and that during the ceremony 
“thej^ told me to pra}" and never cease to pra}" to get revenge for the 
blood of the prophets on this nation, and also teach it to my children 
and children’s children.” (2; 189.) 

On cross-examination this witness stated positivel}^ that she had 
never told anybod}^ about this obligation; and that if Mr. Tayler was 
examining her from a memorandum informing him what her testimony 
would be, she did not know where it came from or how Mr. Ta 3 der 
came to get it (2; 194). On her direct examination Mrs. Elliott stated 
that she was married in Denmark, and that her husband followed her 
to this country. Her examination by counsel for the protestants then 
proceeded as follows: 

Mr. Tayler. Is he living now—that is, the husband whom you married in Den¬ 
mark? 

Mrs. Elliott. No, sir. 

Mr. Tayler. You lived with him until he died, did you? 

Mrs. Tayler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tayler. Where did he die? 

Mrs. Elliott. Why, in Elsinore. 

Mr. Tayler. In Utah? 

Mrs. Elliott. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Tayler. When? 

Mrs. Elliott. In 1897. 

Mr. Tayler. Did you, after his death, marry? 

Mrs. Elliott. Yes, sir; I married in 1899. (2; 184.) 

On her cross-examination, after she had testified that she had left the 
church in 1897, the following occurred: 

Mr. Worthington. Was it before or after the death of your first husband? 

Mrs. Elliott. Why, it was after. 

Mr. Worthington. What time in 1897 did he die? 

Mrs. Elliott. He died in October. (2; 191.) 

The value of the testimony of this witness may be judged by the 
fact that the husband who followed her to this countrv not only did 
not die in October, 1897, but was living at the time Mrs. Elliott gave 
the testimony in question; and was subsequently called as a witness 
on behalf of the respondent (2; 1015). He testified that she had 








IN RE REED SMOOT. 


37 


obtained a divorce from him about six years before he gave his testi¬ 
mony, which was in Januar}^, 1905. His testimony showed clearly 
that she knew he was living when she said he was dead. 

On behalf of the respondent a number of witnesses were examined 
on this subject, and the substance of their testimoii}^ is as follows: 

Hugh M. Dougall, who is a farmer and cattle grower, and is post¬ 
master at the town of Springville, in Utah, was expelled from the 
Mormon Church about 1874, and since then has not been in an}^ way 
connected with it. He took his endowments when he was about 25 
3’ears old. 

He testified that according to his recollection the obligation was, in 
substance, that those who took it importuned heaven to avenge the 
blood of the prophets and the mart3U’s on this generation, and that he 
did not remember the name of Joseph Smith being mentioned at all. 
(2; 759.) 

Mr. Dougall was subsequent!}^ recalled, and asked by Senator Knox 
this question: 

“ Are you willing to sa}^ whether the vow obligated you to anything 
incompatible with 3^our giving full and supreme allegiance to the 
United States or the State of Utah, or which obligated 3"ou to any¬ 
thing incompatible with your fully performing 3’our duty as a citizen 
of the United States and that State U’ 

He answered: ‘‘Not one thing.” (2; 781.) 

Alonzo A. Noon left the Mormon Church voluntarily about 1870, 
when he was 32 }’ears of age, having taken his endowments when he 
was 28 or 30 3^ears old. He stated that there was nothing in the cere¬ 
mony about promising or vowing to importune heaven to avenge the 
blood of the prophets on this nation, and that there was nothing in 
the ceremon}’^ which in any way imported hostilit}^ to the United States 
or to the Government thereof. That he was perfectly clear about 
that. 

He also said he did not remember that the name of Joseph Smith 
was used in the ceremony. , He did recollect that there was in the 
ceremony a quotation from the Scriptures, and upon hearing read 
verses 9 and 10, chapter 6, of the Revelations, he said that it was some¬ 
thing like that; that that was about the intent. 

One of these verses, it will be remembered, was referred to by the 
witness Wallis. 

The two verses are as follows: 

Nine. And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of 
them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. 

Ten. And they cried with a loud voice saying: How long, Oh Lord, holy and true, 
dost Thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth. (774.) 

Being asked whether there was anything in the obligation which 
indicated hostility to the Government, Mr. Noon said: 

“The veiy reverse. I have never heard any people taught only 
lovalt}" to the Government of the United States.” (2; 775.) 

Mr. Noon was recalled and asked the same question that had been 
propounded by Senator Knox to Mr. Dougall, and he answered the 
question in the same wav. (2; 781.) 

IVilliam Hatfield, who was a Mormon until he was 23 years of age, 
after which he drifted awav' from that church, when he was not (^uite 
21 3^ears of age took his endowments as a priliminaiy to his marnage. 
<2; 785.) 


88 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


He said that neither he nor any others in his hearing took the obliga¬ 
tion which Wallis had testified to, and that he did not at that time take 
any obligation or enter into any covenant, vow, or agreement of any 
kind inconsistent with his duties as a citizen of the Territory of Utah 
or of the United States. He was not cross-examined. (2; 71)6.) 

John P. Meakin, who was a Mormon until he was 23 or 24 years of 
age, left the church because he did not believe in polygamy. (2 ; 796.) 

He went through the Endowment House when he was 18 3 ^ears old. 

He stated that he had no recollection at all of an}^ obligation of ven¬ 
geance or retribution, and that nothing took place at the time with 
reference to promising or vowing to importune heaven to avenge the 
blood of the prophets on this Nation, or to avenge the blood of eJoseph 
Smith on anybody; that there was nothing took place which imported ! 
an^" obligation in opposition to his duty as a citizen either of the Ter- | 

ritory of Utah or of the United States; that he was veiy clear about i 
this. (799.) ^ ^ i 

He also said that there was nothing in the endowment ceremony 
about praying the Almighty to avenge the blood of the prophets on 
this generation. (2; 801.) 

Elias A. Smith, cashier of the Deseret Savings Bank, in Salt Lake 
City, in answer to a question bv the chairman, stated that he had con¬ 
scientious scruples against divulging any part of the endowment cere¬ 
mony (2; 854); but in answer to a question by Senator Foraker he said 
there was nothing in an^" obligation of the church which it imposed 
upon its members, in connection with marriage or any other occasion, 
inconsistent with fidelity as citizens of the National Government or to 
the State government. Mr. Smith persisted that while he had stated 
what was not in the obligation he did not feel at liberty to state what 
was in it. (2; 855). 

Richard W. Young, who was a graduate of West Point and of the 
law school of Columbia College, New York Cit\% and who had served 
in the Volunteer Arm}^ in the Spanish war, in the Philippines, and else 
where, is a member of the Mormon Chu^'ch, and is not a polygamist. 

(2; 950-952.) He was asked by the chairman if he had any objection 
to disclosing what took place during the endowment ceremoin^ and 
he replied that he considered himself under an obligation not to do so. 

(2; 969.) 

He was asked later by counsel for the respondent if he had any 
objection to stating whether the ceremony included, in any form or 
shape, an}^ invocation of vengeance or retribution against this nation. 
Senator McComas suggested that the witness should state the whole 
ceremony or nothing. Thereupon an extended argument was made, 
at the end of which the witness was asked b\^ counsel for the respon¬ 
dent: 

In that ceremony is there anything which relates to your duties or obligations to 
your Government or to this nation. 

The chairman ruled that if the witness should answer this question 
he would be required to state the whole ceremony, and thereupon the 
witness declined to answer it. (2; 981-985.) 

Reed Smoot testified positively that there is nothing in the endow¬ 
ment ceremony about avenging the blood of the prophets or avenging 
anything else on this nation or on this Government. (3; 183,184.) 

As already stated, the case was reopened during the present session 
of Congress for the purpose of allowing the introduction of further 



IN RE REED SMOOT. 


39 


testimony on behalf of the protestants, and four additional witnesses 
were produced with reference to the matter of the alleged obligation. 
No further testimony on the subject was taken on behalf of the-, 
respondent. 

Tlie four witnesses referred to were W. J. Thomas, J. P. Holmgrem,, 
II. \V. Lawrence, and W. ^ 1 . Wolfe. 

The witness Thomas testitied that he passed the endowment house ia 
ISdb. Ilis examination on this subject was as follows: 

Mr. Carf.isle. I have ai^ked you about whether any ceremonies took place before- 
the oath or obliiratiou took place? If so, state what it was. 

Mr, Thomas. There were washiiifjs and annointings there. 

Mr. Caklislk. Describe to the committee what you mean by anointing. Was 
your whole body anointed or your arm anointed; and, if so, was anything said whert, 
that was done? 

IMr. Tho.mas. ]My head was anointed and my right arm. I do not mnember any¬ 
thing else. 

Mr. Carlisle. Was anything sai(i by the person who conducted these ceremonies- 
at the time he anointed your right arm? Were yon told what it was for? 

Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir; he spoke very quick and I couldn’t catch it all, but I remem¬ 
ber M’hen he anoirited my arm to make it strong, and the substance of it was that I 
would avenge the blood of the prophets—prophet or prophets, I believe it was the- 
plural. (4;69.) 

******* 

Senator Knox. You took this vow in what year? 

Mr. Thomas. In 1869. 

Senator Knox. How long did you remain in the church after that? 

Mr. Thomas. I remained in the church up until 1880. 

Senator Knox. That was eleven years; and you vowed to avenge the blood of the 
martyrs uj>on this nation, did }OU? 

Mr. Thomas. Yes, sir. 

Senator Knox. And your right arm was anointed to give you strength that you 
might do so. Is that correct? 

Mr. Thomas. That is the way I understood it. 

Senator Knox. What did you ever do in the line of keeping that vow? Did you 
ever avenge the blood of the martyrs upon this nation? 

Mr. Thomas. No, sir. I have enlisted twice to try and defend the nation. 

Senator Knox. Were you ever stirred uj) by the authorities (»f the churcli to get; 
busy in that direction of avenging tie blood of the martyrs upon this nation? 

Mr. Thomas. No. 

Mr. Worthington. Do you know of any memlier of the church who did do any¬ 
thing ill the way of using his right arm to avenge the blood of the prophets on this 
nation? 

Mr. Thomas, No, sir. (4; 71, 72.) 

The witness Holmgren on this sul)ject testitied that he passed 
through the endowment house in 1S89. His further examination on 
this subject is as follows: 

Mr. Carlisle. Do you remember the ceremonies that took place at that time? 

Mr. Holmgren. Part of it. 

:slr. Carlisle. Are you willing to state the oath that was taken, or not. It yon 
are not, I shall not press vou. 

:\Ir. Holmgren. What I understood and heard of it—sure. 

Mr. Carlisle. In the first place, what occurred? 

.Mr. Hoi.muren. In the endowment house? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes. , . .ui • 

Mr Holmgren. There were a number of oaths and performances that were insig¬ 
nificant, I would say, until we came to the anointing room, and in that anomtmg 
room there was some language used that I am sorry I ever heard. 

Mr. Carlisj.e. Can you state what it was? i i u -ri 04 - 

Mr. Holmgren. In anointing my arms, the gentleman used this language: That 
your arms might be strong to avenge the blood of Joseph and Hyrum bmith. 
(4; 76. 77.) 


40 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


The witness Lawrence, who was 70 years old at the time he testified, 
.stated that he was a member of the Mormon church until 1869, and 
that he had taken or administered the alleged obligation in question a 
number of times. The following are the substantial parts of his testi¬ 
mony on this point: 

Mr. Carlisle. ^Nlr. Lawrence, would you object to stating whether there is any 
oath, commonly called here the oath of vengeance, taken in the endowment house, 
and what it is? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes; there is. 

Mr. Carlisle. Can yon state it in terms or in substance? 

Mr. Lawkenxe. “ Yuu covenant and agree before God and angels and these wit¬ 
nesses that you will avenge the blood of the prophets, the prophet Joseph .Smith, 
Hyriim Smith, Parley P. Pratt, David Patton”—their names are mentioned? 

Mr, Carlisle, Was that the case when you took the endowment? 

iNIr. Lawke.nce, Yes, sir. I do not know whether they were all mentioned when 
I was there or not, but they have been mentioned when I have been there. 

Mr. Carlisle. You have passed through the endowment a number of times? 

' Mr. Laavrence. Yes; I have been there a number of times. 

Mr. Carlisle. You mean these names have been mentioned some of the times 
when you pa.ssed through? That is what you mean? 

Mr. Laavrence. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Carlisle. You do not knoAV whether they were all mentioned at the same 
time or not? 

Mr. Laavrence. No, sir. 

Senator Dillingham. Do I understand the witness has given the Avhole of the 
obligation? 

Mr. Carlisle. I will ask him. Do you remember now whether there Avas any¬ 
thing said about vengeance upon the people or vengeance upon the nation, or Avhat 
was said of that sort, if you remember? 

Mr. Laavrence. I say it has been stated. I can not state it only as I understand 
it. The Avord “nation ” was not mentioned where 1 Avas in regard to that vengeance, 
but the feeling has always been against the nation and the State for alloAving that 
deed to be perpetrated. The Avord “nation” was not mentioned. It is a little 
ambiguous in regard to that. 

Mr. Worthington. You say you are ambiguous or it Avas ambiguous? 

Mr. Laavrence. It Avas a little ambiguous there avIio it should be executed on. 
The supposition is it should be executed on the perpetrators of the deed. 

Mr. Carlisle. Mr. LaAvrence, I Avill get you to state, if you can, Avhether this cove¬ 
nant, or oath, or AvhateAxr it may be called, is ahvays administered by the same per¬ 
son and in the same terms, or Avhether it is administered at different times by different 
persons, and Avhether it is in Avriting or merely oral. 

Mr. Laavre.nce. It is administered orally by different persons at different times. 

Mr. Carlisle. It may be, then, that there is a different form of the oath? 

Mr. Lawrence. It may be administered a little different. Of course the substance 
is about the same, but there may be some men Avho administer it a little different 
from others. I have no doubt that it is, from Avhat I haAX heard. 

Mr. Carlisle. You mav take the Avitness. 

Senator Knox. Was this vengeance to be executed by the person taking the oath, 
or A’OAV, or Avere you to implore the Almighty to avenge the blood of the prophets? 

Mr. Laavrence. As I say, it was a little ambiguous in regard to that Of course 
you take an oath toaveng^^ the blood of the prophets and teach the principle to your 
■children and children’s cliihlren. 

Senator Knox. I think you do not understand me. You stated a moment ago 
that there Avas some ambiguity in the oath as to Avhom the vengeance is directed 
against. 

Mr. Laavrence. Yes. 

Senator Knox. Noav, I am asking you Avho Avas to execute the Axngeance. Was 
the person taking the voav or oath to execute it or Avere they to implore by prayer 
that God should take this vt ngeance? 

Mr. Laavrence. Well, that AA'as not inserted in it for the Lord to do it. They 
simply took upon themselves the oath to do it; but I say it is almost impossible for 
them to Avreak vengeance, because those men that committed the deed have probably 
gone years ago. 

Senator Knox. My question Avas based on the exact language used by Professor 
Wolfe yesterday. He said that he heard the oath taken very recently, and that they 
vowed or promised that they Avould jiray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of 



IN RE REED SMOOT. I 41 

the prophets. I think it is quite material, and I want to know wliat your recollec¬ 
tion is about it. 

Mr. Lawrence. That was not inserted in my day—that is, in regard to asking God 
to wreak this vengeance. (4; 108,109.) 

******* 

Mr. \\ ORTHINGTON. Tell us about how many times you were present when this 
oath was administered? 

Mr. Lawrence. I could not say. It would go into the hundreds, probably. 

Mr. Worthington. Several hundred times? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes; or dozens. 1 would say from one to three years, probably. 

Mr. ORTHINGTON. And on each occasion to a great many people I suppose. 

Mr. Lawrence. Y'es, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. On all the occasions w'hen you heard it administered toothers, 
or when it was administered to you, did you ever hear any reference to the nation 
of the United States as the object of vengeance? 

Mr. Lawrence. During my administration the word “nation” was not used. 

Mr. Worthington. Do you mean you administered the oath? 

Mr. Lawrence. No, sir; yes, sir. I mean I officiated there with the rest of them. 

Mr. Worthington. Then you both administered the covenant, and you heard 
others administer it? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. You administered it hundreds of times, and you heard it 
administered hundreds of times; is that right? 

Mr. Lawrence. I was there off and on for one or two years. 

]Mr. Worthington. Did you administer it hundreds of times? 

Mr. Lawrence. 1 will say yes. (4; 110, 111.) 

******* 

Mr. Worthington. Now, I come back. During all the time you administered the 
oath, or heard it administered by others, did you ever hear the “nation” or the 
“ United States,” or the “ Government of the United States ” referred to in any way 
as the object of vengeance that was the subject of that covenant? 

]Mr. Lawrence. 1 will say that, at that time, it was not connected with the obli¬ 
gation. I will say this, that the Government has always been blamed for allowing 
that deed to be perpetrated. 

Mr. Worthington. Don’t let us depart from the ceremony. I want to find out 
■what took place at the ceremony when you administered the covenant. Did you 
administer it always in the same language? 

Mr. Lawrence. 1 tried to, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. Where did you learn it? 

Mr. Lawrence. I learned it from the church ritual, I suppose. It was what was 
given to me. 

Mr. Worthington. AVas it something that was in writing or was it in print? 

Mr. IjAAVrence. >o, sir; not in writing. 

Mr. Worthington. It was communicated to you orally and you committed it to 
memory, did you? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Worthington. A"ou do not remember who gave it to you? 

Mr. Lawrence. I do not remember just now. 

■ Mr. Worthington. It was given to you as the traditional oath of the temple, was 
it not? 

Mr. Lawrence. It was given to me to use. 

Mr. AVorthington. You have said to Mr. Carlisle that there is no doubt that the 
language of the covenant was varied from time to time. Did you ever hear it given 
in any other form than that vou have told us about? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes. I will explain that. I have said that there were different 
parties that officiated at different times, and from what I had heard they had changed 
it a little. Inasmuch as it was orally given, one man would administer it a little differ¬ 
ent from others. 

Mr. AA’^orthington. You know that by hearsa}'? 

Mr. Lawrence. I know that by hearsay only. (4; 111, 112.) 

******* 

Mr. AA’orthington. Keferrrng to this ceremony, and the covenant of vengeance, 
as it is called, do you remember in that connection whether there was any passage 
in the Book of Revelations of the Bible? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. 


42 


IN BE BEED SMOOT. 


Mr. WoKTHiNGTON. What is that? 

Mr. Lawrence. That is used in connection with this as a justification for it. 

Mr. Worthington. Can vou give us the verse anci chapter of Revelations? 

Mr. Lawrence. I think it is a chapter from Revelations. It is probably chapter 
six. It is taken from Revelations. It is simply referred to. I will answer that that 
quotation is referred to. 

Mr. Worthington. Was it not a part of the teaching of the church, when you 
were connected with it, that the Constitution of the United States is an inspired 
document? 

Mr. Lawrence. Yes, sir. Do you want an answer to'that? 

Mr. W’'orthington. I have all the answer I care to have, sir. If there is anything 
you wish to add to take away from the effect of your testimony, you have that 
privilege, provided it is not a speech. Let me read the ninth and tenth verses of 
the sixth chapter of Revelations, and see if those- 

Mr. Lawrence. “How' long, Oh Lord?” It is just a quotation. 

Mr. Worthington. I wdll read the two, and see if those twm verses, or either of 
them, are the ones to wdiich you refer: 

“And when he had opened the fifth seal I saw' under the altar the souls of them 
that w'ere slain by the Word of God, and by the testimony wdiich they held. 

“And they cried wdth a loud voice, saying. How long, Oh Lord, Holy and true, 
dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dw'ell on the earth?” 

Mr. Law'rence. That is part of it in connection with this? 

Mr. Worthington. We w'ould like to have the wdiole of it. Just show us all that 
was referred to in your ceremony there. 

Mr. Law^rence. “How long. Oh Lord, Holy and true.” 

Mr. Worthington. “Dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that 
dwell on the earth?” 

Mr. Lawrence. I think that was the part connected wdth it—just that part. 

Mr. Worthington. You say that was used as a justification of the covenant, in 
connection wdth it? 

Mr. Lawrence. That was used as a justification of the obligation. 

The Chairman. He did not say as a justification of the covenant. 

Mr. Lawrence. Isaid that w'asused asajustificationof the obligation. (4; 116, 117.) 

It will be seen that all three of these witnesses flatly contradicted what 
seems to be the theory of the protestants, that the obligation in ques¬ 
tion involved a promise on the part of the part}^ g’ohig through the 
ceremony hostile to the United States or an appeal to the Almighty 
to inflict punishment on the nation. 

The other witness on the point now under consideration is W. M. 
Wolfe. He testified that he had passed through the endowment house 
no less than twelve times, the first time being in ]May, 1894, and the 
last time in October, 1902. His examination on this subject then pro¬ 
ceeded as follows: 

Mr. Carlisle. Will you state to the committee w'hether there is, as part of the 
ceremonies in the temple, any oath administered? 

Mr. Wolfe. There are several oaths administered. 

Mr. Carlisle. Can you state wdiat they are? 

Mr. WoiyE. There is an oath of chastity, or, I might say, a covenant or law—a 
law of sacrifice and a law' of vengeance. 

Mr. Carlisle. When you say a law' of vengeance, wdiat do you mean? Do vou 
mean that there is any promise or pledge to avenge a w'rong, or do you mean simply 
that there is some law read to you, or some rule read to you? 

Mr. Wolfe. There is no covenant or agreement on tlie part of any individual to 
avenge anything. 

Mr. Carlisle. Just state to the committee what it is. 

Mr. Wolfe. The law^ of vengeance is this: “You and each of you do covenant and 
promise that you will pray, and never cease to pray. Almighty God to avenge the 
blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you w ill teach the same to your 
children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generations.”*^ At 
the conclusion the speaker says: “All bow your heads and say ‘ Yes.’ ” 

Mr. Carlisle. Was that done? 

Mr. Wolfe. It w as done. 

Senator Overman. Was that done every time, or just one time? 

Mr. Wolfe. It w'as done every time I went through. (4; 7.) 




IN RE REED SMOOT. 


43 


Mr. Wolfe, for several years, and up to January last, was one of 
the professors in the Brio-’ham Young College, at Logan, a Mormon 
institution. When asked on cross-examination whether charges of 
drunkenness had not been preferred against him in the institution, he 
said that no such charges had been made, to his knowledge, but that 
such charges might have been preferred against him. Upon being 
asked what he meant by saying that such charges might have been 

E referred against him, he answered that he meant that he had made 
imself liable to such charges for a period of possibly twenty years. 
(4; 24.) 

He admitted that certain officers of the institution had had conversa¬ 
tions with him in regard to his habit of drinking (4—25). He admit¬ 
ted that he had been required to resign his position in January last; 
but claimed that this was done because about that time he had given 
notice that he would no longer pay tithing. He admitted that officers 
of the institution had made objection to his habits of drinking, but 
said that they had never suggested his removal, or the desirability of 
his resignation until he had refused to pay tithes. (4; 26). 

As to Wolfe’s testimony, the respondent olfered considerable testi¬ 
mony in rebuttal. One of the witnesses on this subject was James H. 
Linford, the president of Brigham Young College. He testified fully 
as to Wolfe’s habit of drinking for a considerable period prior to the 
time he was compelled to resign; and testified, in substance, that 
Wolfe’s resignation was not demanded on account of his refusing to 
pay tithes, but because his habits of drinking had grown on him so 
that it was no longer possible to allow him to retain his position. (4; 
261, 271.) 

There was also filed on behalf of the respondent the affidavit of 
Joseph E. Cardon, the bishop of the ward at Logan, in which Wolfe 
lived. This affidavit was admitted as evidence by consent of counsel 
for the protestants, and by leave of the committee. In this affidavit 
the witness contradicts what Wolfe stated in his testimony with refer¬ 
ence to a conversation with the witness on the subject of tithing. 

Wolfe was also contradicted, in a very material part of his evidence, 
by four witnesses. He had preferred charges against one Benjamin 
Klufi', in connection with a certain expedition that had been made to 
Mexico, of which expedition Kluff was in charge, and Wolfe was a 
member. Wolfe testified that on that expedition he had seen Kluff 
living in marital relations with one Florence Reynolds, who is alleged 
to have been Kluff's plural wife^ taken since the manifesto. Wolfe 
testified that, at the hearing of these charges before a church council, 
he had stated that he had seen Kluflf and Florence Reynolds living in 

that relation. , , , 

By consent of counsel for the protestants, and by leave ot the com¬ 
mittee, there were filed the affidavit of the stenographer who took 
down Wolfe’s statement, and the joint affidavit of the three members 
of the committee before whom he made his statement, all of them say¬ 
ing that he had not in any way referred to the fact that he had seen 
Klufl[‘ and Florence Reynolds living together, and that he did not in 
any way refer to the relations between those two people. (4; 302, 

408, 409.) . , . 

Taking all of the testimony on this subject together, the overwhelm¬ 
ing weight of it is against the contention that the respondent ever 
took any obligation of hostility to the United States. Seven witnesses 


44 


IN RE REED SMOOT. 


hav:e in an indefinite way testified that the obligation included some 
kind of a promise or prayer indicating hostilit}^ to the nation, while 
13 witnesses, about one-half of whom were called on behalf of the 
protestants, have testified positively and unqualifiedly to the contrary. 
All of the witnesses who nave testified that the word ‘‘nation” was 
used in the obligation have been impeached as to their credibility, 
and no evidence has been introduced tending to sustain the veracity 
of any one of them. 


O 


H 




LB 0 '06 






















o 

O V 






^ * OHS • ^ ^ 

* V •» 






c »/ • - 

'^ov^ ^-^0^ 







> - %^il^$:0'« V 

< V ^ * • - * A® ^ ^ 

.‘/Gltoh'. -'Sfe'' '■' 

o. 'o . .* A <. 0^ <r. 

<<i> o-"** O^ .^'** '^O A^ 



.• ^ 

0^ *. 





O' • ’ • <> v^ *l!ltL:* ^ A 

► . ^ *?i - ^ 4, A** 



Cr • ^' • ♦ ^o 0 ® " • <* • '• ' • ♦ ^O A*^ 





^Ao" 





o y 


i’- 


k ^ * ”<5597//^'* ^ 

V' *0 ,**‘»- V v^ 

♦■ --^K-* /%. '^^K*‘ • 

o .«■•vV■‘■’o^"!•‘■•*"•*'o'“■‘\^'^^•■-V*'* 0^ 

^ • oc^\^^w . VI- (j * ^ 


** A^ ^ 



0^ 'o''.T'* A <.'"''Trr*\o^ 'o'*.“I- ,A 

0*'^ • • 4 *^o A*^ e ® ** ® •* • ‘^ * • 4 *^o 





o V 







o V 


4 O. 
i? «<» 


V ^1*®- > V^ * 1 ^'* «o 

•• :-»\ \./ ••- 


* aV-^ - 

/ <3.’^ ', 





• aV^ 

/ % --NaE/^* 

°'‘' .P <* -A^ 

O A^ o''""-* ^»Jv » »■ ' • 4 'o #. O ** '® * fV 


V4, ®**’ *-77«* *0'^^ "^::> -o','** ^ 




o <0 «7*, 









, •!>■»' ■> v' -••' 

^ *^-A. ^ • "V ^ ^ 

'SK*' >‘^^'\. °»'' 

/•V I *’ * “» o c “ * * <» r\^ i. • • 




. •*< 

S'^rv 

O 'o , * - /\ 

^ -^r o°“** r»> -r> 

^ .' 'Tjv , 


\ t s 



—I, 

t; . * .0^ V 

SV .t/., 





■» O 


a\ * ' • • • 


^ K 


«0 



■4 O. 
a? ■*<k 


V > A • • • 


'^. ‘'■>^^^‘* \vaKS>.‘ •; 

'«.* 



'••• , % ''>••• <-^ *-TVV 0^ 

o > 






’ '\ '• 

’ ♦ '\°' ‘J^ ♦ ■ ■ ■* • “ *. % '° ’ ‘ * a4>^ .»■ • . *' *' ■’ 









-• <(P \ '®Trr-^ 

^..4- /^\ V./ %,4^ / - 



Vc,- 


• aV"*^ - 



c °^°'^ ”^*#“ 

•^^6* '^a'^ •V'^H^’r 


4'C',> . 


♦ aS ^ 

' V 




»•» 


* K^ 



•• aO^ O- 







.Vi 


® ^ 'V -fr’ 

O- ^.o ,0 ^ •,,* aV* ^^ '•.<> 

i « ^ 

* tv\\'^&w//>j - > • z g:;iw i iB5 gv r ^ 


r 


Indiana 46962^]^^ 0^ o ^ r 


O A l' 


<7X- 


' V ^ 





















































